Phase II RFC
Report on Performance Testing
Aprils, 1999
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Mobile Sources
Fuels and Energy Division
-------
CONTENTS
I. Executive Summary
II. Background
A. RFG Program
B. Implementation Workgroup
III. Vehicle Performance Test Program
A. Design
B. Fuel
C. Fleets
D. Vehicle Performance
IV. Fuel Economy
A. Southwest Research Institute Study
B. Fleet Average Fuel Economy
V. Nonroad Test Program
A. Utility, Lawn, and Garden Equipment
B. Marine Engines
VI. Motorcycle Test Program
VII. Conclusion
-------
TABLES
1. Test Fuel Properties
2. Boston Police Department Fleet
3. Elk Grove Village Fleet
4. Houston Lighting & Power Fleet
5. Arlington County Nonroad Engines
6. Harley-Davidson Motorcycles Tested in Laboratory
7. Harley-Davidson Motorcycles Tested On-road
APPENDICES
A. Phase II RFG Implementation Workgroup
B. Testing Team
C. Technical Steering Committee
D. Test Plan: Evaluation of On-Highway Motor Vehicles Operated on Federal
Phase II Reformulated Gasoline
E. Comparison of Fuel Parameters in California Cleaning Burning Gasoline and
Federal Phase II RFG
F. Statement of Work
G. Certificates of Analysis
H. NVFEL Fuel Analyses
I. Daily Minimum and Maximum Temperatures in Test Cities
J. Ford Analysis
K. General Motors Analyses
L. Letter from Elk Grove Village Fleet Manager
M. Southwest Research Institute Fuel Economy Study
N. Temperatures at Milwaukee Mitchell Airport: October - December 1998
Acknowledgment
This report was peer reviewed by the Phase II RFG Implementation Workgroup's
technical steering committee. Members of the technical steering committee are listed in
Appendix C.
This report was also reviewed by John Hornback, director of the Kentucky
Department for Environmental Protection's Division for Air Quality and co-chair of the
workgroup, and by Martin Gottschalk, manager of the Georgia Department of Natural
Resources's Mobile Sources and Area Sources Program.
-------
I. Executive Summary
The federal reformulated gasoline (RFG) program was introduced in January
1995. RFG is a specially blended gasoline that burns cleaner, reducing vehicle
emissions of air pollutants that cause smog. Congress requires the RFG program in
those cities with the worst smog problems. Other areas may choose to participate in
the program. Seventeen states and the District of Columbia currently use RFG. About
30 percent of the U.S. gasoline supply is reformulated.
The second phase of the RFG program will begin in January 2000. Phase II
RFG will achieve even greater vehicle emission reductions than Phase I, although the
gasoline blend will be similar in many ways. To ensure that any vehicle performance
problems with Phase II RFG would be identified before the fuel is introduced to the
public, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conducted a fleet testing
program in 1998.
EPA tested 374 in use vehicles in three cities over a period of three to five
months. Conditions during testing included subfreezing temperatures in the north and
record heat in the south. The combined test fleets drove over one million miles with
Phase II RFG. No performance problems with Phase II RFG were reported.
Fleets that participated in the testing program include the Boston Police
Department, Elk Grove Village in suburban Chicago, and the Houston Lighting & Power
Company. Vehicles in these fleets were generally well maintained.
Well maintained vehicles should experience no unusual performance problems
with Phase II RFG. Of course, as vehicles age, parts wear out, so maintenance is the
key to good performance with any fuel.
In a separate study by Southwest Research Institute, fuel economy with Phase II
RFG was compared to Phase I RFG with 12 vehicles of various makes, ages, and
mileage under normal driving conditions. The results indicate no statistically significant
difference between the fuels. The results are consistent with other fuel economy
studies which show that fuels of equivalent energy content will produce equivalent fuel
economy.
Testing was also conducted with small engines, including 177 pieces of utility,
lawn, and garden equipment, and with marine and motorcycle engines. No
performance problems were reported.
In summary, no difference in vehicle performance or fuel economy is expected
when Phase II RFG replaces Phase I RFG. In addition, no difference in performance is
expected with small engines, marine engines, or motorcycles.
-------
II. Background
A. RFG Program
Section 211 (k) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) directs EPA to issue regulations
establishing a reformulated gasoline program that will significantly reduce vehicle
emissions that contribute to smog. On February 16, 1994, EPA published a final rule
establishing various content and emission reduction standards for RFG, including
provisions for enforcement of RFG standards (59 FR 7716). The purpose of the RFG
program is to improve air quality by requiring that gasoline sold in certain areas of the
U.S. be reformulated to reduce emissions of toxics and smog-forming compounds from
motor vehicles.
Section 211(k) mandates that RFG be sold in the nine specific metropolitan
areas with the most severe summertime ozone levels as measured during the period
1987 through 1989; RFG must also be sold in any ozone nonattainment area
subsequently reclassified as a severe area. Other ozone nonattainment areas may
choose to participate or "opt in" to the program. Ground level or tropospheric ozone is
the primary ingredient of smog. Ground level ozone results from a reaction between
such gases as volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) that
are emitted from vehicles and other sources.
The Act mandates certain requirements for the RFG program. Section 211(k)(1)
directs EPA to issue regulations that:
require the greatest reduction in emissions of ozone forming volatile organic
compounds (during the high ozone season) and emissions of toxic air pollutants
(during the entire year) achievable through the reformulation of conventional
gasoline, taking into consideration the cost of achieving such emission
reductions, any nonair quality and other air-quality related health and
environmental impacts and energy requirements.
Section 211(k) specifies the minimum requirement for reduction of VOCs and toxics for
1995 through 1999, or Phase I of the RFG program; the section specifies that EPA
must require the more stringent of a specified fuel formula or an emission reduction
performance standard, measured on a mass basis, equal to 15 percent of baseline
emissions. Baseline emissions are the emissions of 1990 model year technology
vehicles operated on a specified baseline gasoline. Section 211(k) compositional
specifications for RFG include a 2.0 weight percent oxygen minimum standard and a
1.0 volume percent benzene maximum standard. Section 211(k) also specifies that
emissions of NOx may not increase in RFG over baseline emissions.
For the year 2000 and beyond, or Phase II of the RFG program, the Act specifies
-------
that the VOC and toxic performance standards must be no less than either a specified
fuel formula or a 25 percent reduction from baseline emissions, whichever is more
stringent. EPA can adjust these standards upward or downward taking into account
such factors as technological feasibility and cost, but in no case can the standards be
less than 20 percent.
Shortly after passage of the CAA Amendments in 1990, EPA entered into a
regulatory negotiation with interested parties to develop specific proposals for
implementing the RFG program. In August 1991, the negotiating committee reached
consensus on a program outline that would form the basis for a notice of proposed
rulemaking, addressing emission content standards for Phase I (1995-1999), emission
models, certification, enforcement, and other important program elements.
The regulatory negotiation conducted by EPA did not address the Phase II VOC
and toxic standards for RFG, nor did it address a reduction in NOx emissions beyond
the statutory cap imposed under section 211(k)(2)(A). The final rule promulgated by
EPA closely followed the consensus outline agreed to by various parties in the
negotiated rulemaking process. The final rule also adopted a NOx emission reduction
performance standard for Phase II RFG, relying on authority under section 211(c)(1)(A).
Reformulated Gasoline Average Emission Reduction Requirements*
Phase I** Phase II**
Volatile Organic Compounds 17% 27%
Nitrogen Oxides 2% 7%
Toxics 17% 22%
*Reductions are from 1990 nationwide baseline.
"Complex model averaged standards for VOC-control Region 2 (i.e., northern areas).
The Phase I RFG program is designed to reduce the air pollution that causes
smog by 36,000 tons per year in the areas that use RFG, compared to conventional
gasoline -- the equivalent of eliminating the emissions from over eight million vehicles.
When Phase II RFG replaces Phase I, the program is designed to reduce smog
pollutants by an additional 45,000 tons per year in RFG areas, for a combined
equivalent of eliminating the emissions from over 16 million vehicles.
Analysis of fuel data submitted to EPA by industry for compliance purposes
indicates that in each year since the RFG program's introduction in 1995, VOC and
-------
toxic reductions from the RFG program have exceeded program requirements.
Preliminary data analysis for 1998 indicates that, on average, all Phase I emission
reduction standards are being met and exceeded. In 1998, most RFG already
exceeded the Phase II RFG average perfoimance standard for toxics, and some RFG
in the Northeast exceeded Phase II RFG emission reduction standards for NOx in the
ozone control season (i.e., the summer months). At this time, refiners are still making
incremental investments to produce adequate volumes of compliant Phase II RFG.
Air quality monitoring data for 1995, the first year of the RFG program, shows a
43 percent reduction in benzene in the ambient air in RFG areas, according to EPA's
National Air Quality and Emission Trends Report, 1995. A greater percentage of
monitoring sites in RFG areas showed statistically significant decreases in average
benzene than did sites in non-RFG areas. The RFG program limits benzene. Still, to
overcome the difficulties inherent in linking changes in the ambient air to particular
pollution reduction programs like RFG, an independent analysis of the data was
conducted by Sonoma Technology, Inc. The analysis of the 1995 ambient air
monitoring data indicates that there is a strong case that the ambient reductions in
benzene resulted from RFG.
B. Implementation Workgroup
In April 1997, EPA formed a stakeholder workgroup under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act to focus on Phase II RFG implementation issues. The Phase II RFG
Implementation Workgroup was established by the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee's
Mobile Source Technical Review Subcommittee. The workgroup includes
representatives of the automobile and oil industries, environmental and public health
groups, and state agencies and associations. The goal of the workgroup is to provide
factual information to the public by working together to identify, gather, and analyze
data on Phase II RFG. Members of the workgroup are listed in Appendix A. The
workgroup formed teams to focus on testing and education activities.
III. Vehicle Performance Test Program
To ensure that any vehicle performance problems with Phase II RFG would be
identified before the fuel is introduced to the public, the testing team recommended a
fleet testing program with Phase II RFG, compared to Phase I RFG. The fleet testing
recommendation was adopted by the workgroup, and the Mobile Source Technical
Review Subcommittee. Members of the testing team are listed in Appendix B.
The testing team also recommended formation of a technical steering committee
to guide development of the fleet testing program. Members of the technical steering
committee are listed in Appendix C.
-------
A. Design
The purpose of the test program was to identify any performance problems that
might be associated with Phase II RFC before the fuel is introduced to the public in;
January 2000 by conducting performance testing in several cities representative of RFG
areas. Boston, Chicago, and Houston were selected by the workgroup as test program
sites.
The technical steering committee worked with EPA to develop a test plan,
"Evaluation of On-Highway Motor Vehicles Operated on Federal Phase II Reformulated
Gasoline," included as Appendix D. The plan is similar to the test program conducted
by the California Air Resources Board for the introduction of its cleaner burning gasoline
program in June 1996, but smaller in scale.
From February to August 1995, the California Air Resources Board conducted a
performance and compatibility test program with its cleaner burning gasoline (CaRFG).
With a fleet of 1466 vehicles, 829 test vehicles were driven over five million miles with
CaRFG. The workgroup believes that the California data is applicable to Phase II RFG
since the testing was conducted on a wide mix of vehicle types and ages with a fuel
more severely reformulated and designed to burn cleaner than is expected for Phase II
RFG. A comparison of the properties of Phase II RFG and CaRFG is included in
Appendix E.
California's test results indicate that CaRFG performed as well as conventional
fuel in terms of driveability, starting, idling, acceleration, power, and safety. There was
no significant difference between the frequency of problems in the test and control
fleets. Newer vehicles did not experience problems. Historical maintenance and repair
data indicate an increasing rate ofiailures in fuel system components associated with
aging irrespective of the fuel used.
The workgroup determined that the California testing results are relevant for
Phase II RFG. However, several data gaps were identified, particularly vehicle
performance with ethanol-oxygenated fuels and vehicle performance in cold
temperatures and the shoulder season (i.e., the period of time in late spring and early
autumn when unseasonably cold temperatures may occur). Therefore, EPA's test
program was designed to fill gaps in existing data.
Funding for the test fuel for Boston and Chicago was provided by the American
Petroleum Institute, Oxygenated Fuels Association, and American Methanol Institute.
Management of fuel distribution for the Boston and Chicago fleets was handled by the
Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium. EPA provided test fuel for Houston. EPA
entered into a contract with each participating fleet that covered identification of the test
fleet, vehicle inspection, incident reporting, and fuel provisions. An example of a
8
-------
statement of work for these contracts is included in Appendix F.
To carry out the test plan, EPA technicians from the National Vehicle and Fuel
Emissions Laboratory inspected the fuel systems of each test and control vehicle
included in the test program. Fuel system inspections were conducted three times over
five months in Boston and Chicago, and twice over three months in Houston. For each
test and control vehicle inspected, relevant information such as mileage and vehicle
description was noted on fuel system inspection forms. Examples of these forms are
included with the test plan in Appendix D.
The test plan also includes driveability incident logs that were designed to
capture information on vehicle performance measures such as starting, running, and
idling. EPA provided copies of the driveability incident log to participating fleets. The
driveability incident log is included in Appendix D.
B.
Fuel
The technical steering committee developed four formulations of test fuel for the
fleet testing program that meet the standards for Phase II RFG: winter fuel oxygenated
with MTBE, winter fuel oxygenated with ethanol, summer fuel oxygenated with MTBE,
and summer fuel oxygenated with a mixture of MTBE and TAME. The test fuel
formulations are equivalent to the average or 50th percentile fuel expected for Phase II
RFG. The test fuel property specifications developed by the technical steering
committee are shown in the test plan in Appendix D. The technical steering committee
also developed allowable ranges of parameters and maximum blending fractions for
each test fuel to assure that the test fuels would be representative of actual refinery
blends. The fractions and ranges are included in the test plan in Appendix D. The
properties of the test fuels used in the fleet testing program are shown in Table 1.
Table 1 - Test Fuel Properties
Oxygenate, vol%
RVP, psi
Sulfur, ppm
Aromatics, vol%
Olefins, vol%
Benzene, vol%
T10.F
T50, F
T90, F
Summer MTBE
11.2
6.8
155
24.5
12
1.0
139.7
205.7
312.5
Summer MTBE +
TAME
10.81 MTBE
3.288 TAME
6.75
169
23.5
13
1.0
138.5
192.7
308.2
Winter MTBE
11.7
12.8
298
23.85
10.5
0.98
106.5
190.3
331.3
Winter Ethanol
9.74
13.1
309
25.2
11
0.999
110.4
182.7
335.3
-------
Test fuel was manufactured by Phillips Chemical Company. Certificates of
analysis for the four fuel formulations used in the testing program are included in
Appendix G. Fuel property analyses were also performed for verification by EPA's
National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory (NVFEL) in Ann Arbor. NVFEL
analyses confirmed that the fuels fell within acceptable ranges for Phase II RFC, or
within test method precision range, which specifies an acceptable range of variability.
NVFEL analyses are included in Appendix H.
During the testing program, Boston received five test fuel deliveries totaling
39,914 gallons. Of the total, 23,947 gallons were the winter fuel oxygenated with
MTBE, 8,073 gallons were the summer fuel oxygenated with MTBE, and 7,894 gallons
were the summer fuel oxygenated with MTBE and TAME.
Elk Grove Village in suburban Chicago received three fuel deliveries totaling
24,432 gallons. Of the total, 16,272 gallons were the winter fuel oxygenated with
ethanol, and 8,160 gallons were the summer fuel oxygenated with MTBE.
Houston received three test fuel deliveries totaling 23,448 gallons. All test fuel
used in Houston was the summer fuel oxygenated with MTBE.
C. Fleets
Three vehicle fleets in three cities participated in the program. Boston, Chicago,
and Houston were selected by the testing team and approved by the workgroup as
representative of geographic areas participating in the RFG program. The National
Association of Fleet Administrators provided assistance in locating participating fleets.
Testing in Boston and suburban Chicago's Elk Grove Village was conducted
from March through July. In Houston, the test period was June through August. Daily
minimum and maximum temperatures for the test period for Boston, Chicago, and
Houston are listed in Appendix I.
\
In Boston, the Police Department agreed to participate in the fleet testing
program. The fleet was composed of two police precincts; one precinct provided a test
fleet and another precinct provided a control fleet. Due to the preexisting sizes of the
fleet at each precinct, it was not possible to find a closer match between the number of
vehicles in the test and control fleets.
10
-------
Table 2 - Boston Police Department Test Fleet
Test Fuel
Control Fuel
Year
99
98
97
96
95
94
93
92
91
90
89
88
Total
1
4
35
9
20
2
10
1
9
2
2
2
97
Cars
0
3
35
9
17
2
8
1
9
0
2
1
87
Trucks
1
1
0
0
3
0
2
0
0
2
0
1
10
Cars
0 .
0
23
8
8
0
5
1
6
0
1
1
53
Trucks
0
1
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
6
Cars
0
3
12
1
9
2
3
0
3
0
1
0
34
Trucks
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
4
In suburban Chicago, Elk Grove Village agreed to participate in the program.
The fleet is composed of vehicles used in the full range of municipal activities, including
fire and police protection, and parks and sewer maintenance.
Two motorcycles belonging to Elk Grove Village also used Phase II RFG during
the test program. The motorcycles are not included in the table or in the results
because of their small number and because there were no control motorcycles. No
performance problems were reported with the two motorcycles using Phase II RFG.
For further information on motorcycle performance with Phase II RFG, see section VI
fora description of the motorcycle testing program conducted by Harley-Davidson.
11
-------
Table 3 - Elk Grove Village Test Fleet
Test Fuel
Control Fuel
Year
97
96
95
94
93
92
91
90
89
88
87
86
83
82
81
79
73
Total
4
14
11
13
14
14
8
3
1
8
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
98
Cars
0
13
10
11
13
13
7
3
1
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
75
Trucks
4
1
1
2
1
1
1
0
0
5
0
2
1
1
1
1
1
23
Cars
0
6
5
6
6
7
3
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
37
Trucks
2
1
0
1
0
0
1
0 .
0
3
0
1
1
0
1
0
1
12
Cars
0
7
5
5
7
6
4
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
38
Trucks
2
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
11
In Houston, the Lighting & Power Company agreed to participate in the test
program. Unlike the Boston and Chicago fleets, most of the vehicles in the Houston
fleet are trucks.
12
-------
Table 4 - Houston Lighting & Power Test Fleet
Test Fuel
Control Fuel
Year
97
96
95
94
93
92
91
Total
53
12
59
15
10
0
30
179
Cars
15
5
1
0
1
0
23
45
Trucks
38
7
58
15
9
0
7
134
Cars
11
3
1
0
0
0
12
27
Trucks
21
6
30
4
4
0
2
67
Cars
4
2
0
0
1
0
11
18
Trucks
17
1
28
11
5
0
5
67
The fleets involved in the testing program were composed primarily of General
Motors and Ford cars and trucks, with model years ranging from 1973 to 1999. Trucks
include sport utility vehicles, vans, pickups, and step vans. The practicalities of finding
fleets of an appropriate size, in the geographic locations desired, at the time needed,
necessarily limited potential options in terms of representing all automobile
manufacturers. The vehicle technologies tested are generally representative of vehicle
technologies employed over the same time period.
D. Vehicle Performance
For the purposes of this fleet testing program, the term "incident" means that a
fuel system component was adjusted, repaired, or replaced other than through regular
scheduled maintenance. There were six incidents during the course of the testing
program involving vehicles using Phase II RFC test fuel.
Boston
During the test program, one fuel pump from a 1988 truck in the Boston Police
fleet using Phase II RFG was sent to the vehicle manufacturer for analysis. The pump
symptom was a leak at the pump outlet port. The manufacturer determined that the
pump's performance was still within specifications. The manufacturer's examination
indicated that the cause of the leak was mechanical and not fuel related. It was most
likely to have resulted from damage to the fitting that screws into the pump outlet port.
The manufacturer's analysis is included in Appendix J. The incident occurred during
the use of summer test fuel oxygenated with MTBE and TAME.
13
-------
Elk Grove Village
Four incidents were reported on vehicles using Phase II RFC test fuel during the
course of testing in suburban Chicago's Elk Grove Village. All four incidents occurred
with the winter test fuel oxygenated with ethanol.
In three cases, electric fuel pumps failed on police vehicles that ranged in age
from 1992 to 1996 with between 56,000 and 85,000 miles. Fuel pumps from the 1995
and 1996 vehicles were sent to the vehicle manufacturer for analysis. The
manufacturer determined that the two pumps failed because of severe corrosion of the
positive brush shunt wire. According to the manufacturer, the corrosion is typical of
previously observed field results during long-term exposure to gasoline containing
reactive sulfur compounds that did not meet ASTM specifications. The manufacturer
concluded that a high level of corrosion probably was present in both pumps at the start
of the testing program, and the failures were unrelated to the use of Phase II RFG. The
analysis submitted by the manufacturer is included as Appendix K. The third electric
fuel pump, from the 1992 vehicle, was inadvertently disposed of by a fleet mechanic
before it could be shipped to the manufacturer for analysis. While it seems likely that
the third fuel pump suffered from the same corrosion as the other two, there is
insufficient information to determine the cause of the failure.
In response to the findings in the manufacturer's analysis, samples of the winter
test and control fuels were analyzed to assess relative corrosivity. Some sulfur
compounds that remain in gasoline after refining can have a corroding action on various
metals. Copper strip corrosion tests were performed and the results showed both fuels
to be non-corrosive. The results of the corrosivity tests support the manufacturer's view
that the electric pump failures were unrelated to the use of Phase II RFG.
The fourth fuel pump from the Elk Grove Village fleet was removed from a 1981
step van with 66,000 miles. The manufacturer's analysis indicates that the mechanical
pump is an after market part of unknown manufacture and showed no obvious signs of
failure except an oil leak and extruded seal. The oil leak was not caused by fuel
composition, but the extruded seal could be the result of excessive swell caused by
oxygenates or a high aromatic content or a combination, or by an assembly problem.
The manufacturer speculated that if the seal extruded because of excessive swell, that
could have happened in the short duration of the test program; however, the
manufacturer concluded it is more likely that the pump failure was unrelated to Phase II
RFG use.
According to the Elk Grove Village fleet manager, the number of fuel pump
failures during the test program is normal for the fleet's size; in his experience, fuel
pump replacement is expected on vehicles that have accumulated more than 60,000
miles. The fleet manager's comments are included in Appendix L.
14
-------
Houston
One fuel pump using test fuel in Houston failed during the course of the test
program. That pump and three pumps from fleet vehicles not participating in the test
program were sent to the manufacturer for analysis. All four pumps were from 1993
pickups with mileage ranging from 72,771 to 86,589. Heavy commutator wear coupled
with normal brush wear led the manufacturer to believe that all four pumps failed due to
operation on peroxidized fuel, also known as sour fuel. Since the failure occurred with
both the test and control fuels, the manufacturer theorized that the failures are more
likely related to the fuel dispensing system or to vehicle usage and operating factors
rather than the composition of either fuel. The manufacturer's analysis is included in
Appendix K.
The three pickups using Phase I RFC control fuel that had pump failures,
described above, were not assigned to the control fleet. However, fleet personnel
alerted EPA to the incidents. Although not assigned to the control fleet, the three
pickups were using the same fuel as the control fleet. The incidents are reported here
due to their close occurrence in time and similarity to the single test fleet fuel pump
failure.
Fuel samples from both the test and control fuel dispensers in Houston were
analyzed to determine their levels of peroxide, gum, and acidity, properties related to
storage and handling degradation. Both fuel analyses indicated the fuel properties
were within acceptable ranges. These analyses suggest that individual vehicle usage
and operating factors are more likely related to the incidents than the fuel dispensing
system, since peroxidation occurred in individual fuel tanks, not in the fleet's fuel
dispensing system. The summer testing in Houston included an extended period of
extremely hot weather, a condition conducive to oxidation of gasoline in individual
vehicle fuel tanks.
Summary
There were six incidents during the course of the testing program in vehicles
using test fuel. Five of the six incidents were deemed unrelated to the use of Phase II
RFC by the relevant automobile manufacturer. In the sixth incident, the part in question
was lost and the cause of its failure could not be determined.
No problems with starting, running, idling, acceleration, or power were reported
by any fleet. One fleet manager described his fleet's use of Phase II RFG as
transparent; fleet users and the mechanical staff saw no change or effect (see
Appendix L).
15
-------
IV. Fuel Economy
Another aspect of the testing program recommended by the workgroup involves
measuring fuel economy with Phase II RFG compared to Phase I RFC. Two data sets
are presented here.
A. Southwest Research Institute Study
EPA hired Southwest Research Institute (SWRI) to conduct a fuel economy
study comparing Phase II RFG with Phase I RFG. Fuel economy was measured for 12
vehicles of various makes, ages, mileage, and fuel delivery systems. The vehicles
were driven over fixed 50 mile urban and suburban routes. Fuel usage was determined
by using a flow meter to precisely measure the total volume of fuel consumed during
the 50 mile route. The Phase II RFG summer fuel oxygenated with MTBE was used.
The results of this study do not indicate any statistically significant fuel economy
difference between the fuels.
The fleet average fuel economy was 21.71 miles per gallon with Phase I RFG
and 21.36 miles per gallon with Phase II RFG. The difference in fleet fuel economies
was 0.343. Statistical tests indicate that the small difference in fleet fuel economies
cannot be attributed to the fuel, and that the difference would have to be almost twice
as large to be significant. The difference in fleet fuel economies may be due to
variability in the test method. Sources of such test-to-test variability that could not be
entirely controlled in the study include differences in driver inputs, traffic patterns, and
weather effects.
The outcome of the SWRI study is consistent with other fuel economy studies,
and with EPA's analysis of test fleet fuel economy (discussed below). Fuel economy is
generally proportional to the energy content of the fuel. During the past few years,
studies of the fuel economy effects of reformulated gasolines with oxygenates,
including laboratory and on-road studies, have shown that the addition of two percent
oxygen, by weight, to gasoline results in a one to three percent fuel economy loss. In
this study, both gasolines have essentially the same oxygen content and the same
energy content. Since the energy content difference between Phase I RFG and Phase
II RFG is expected to be minimal, the absence of an impact on the fuel economy
measured in this study was expected.
The SWRI study was designed to minimize the effects of the fuel economy
variables that are normally present in driving. The key variables include differences in
personal driving habits, weather (temperature, wind effects, and precipitation), traffic
patterns (rush hour versus weekend, highway versus city driving), number of
passengers, vehicle condition, and changes in tire pressure. The relative effect of many
of these variables can be expected to exceed any reduction due to the use of RFG.
16
-------
The SWRI report is included as Appendix M. The report was reviewed by the technical
steering committee and presented to the workgroup.
B. Fleet Average Fuel Economy
Data on fleet average fuel economy for this analysis is limited. The Boston fleet
provided no data on fuel economy because the records of fuel usage were not
sufficient. Data from the Houston fleet contained gaps and inconsistencies that
prevented useful analysis. The Elk Grove Village fleet maintained sufficient fueling
records to determine fuel economy for a portion of the fleet, and is included here.
Data obtained from the Elk Grove Village fleet for the test period in 1997 and
1998 indicate that there is no meaningful difference in fuel economy between Phase I
RFC and Phase II RFC. For the Elk Grove Village fleet, vehicles using Phase I RFC as
control fuel were different than those using Phase II RFG as test fuel, unlike the study
performed by SWRI. Also, the routes and driving styles of each individual vehicle
differed within each fuel group. Nevertheless, the makes and types of vehicles were
essentially the same between each fuel group. The test fleet included seven Caprices
and one E250. The control fleet included 12 Caprices, one Mustang, and one Tempo.
For the test period, March through July in 1998, the composite averages in miles
per gallon (i.e., total fleet miles driven divided by total fleet gallons used) for the test
and control fleets were 9.59 and 9.47 respectively, representing a 1.2 percent
difference between the two fuels. The value of 1.2 percent does not represent a
meaningful difference in miles per gallon between the two fuels, given the other
measures of variability between the two data sets, noted above.
By comparison, during March through July in 1997, when both fleets were using
Phase I RFG, the composite averages in miles per gallon for the test and control fleets
were 9.48 and 9.47 respectively, representing a 0.1 percent difference between the two
fuels. The 95 percent confidence interval for the 1997 control fleet was 9.32 to 11.29
miles per gallon. The mean miles per gallon for the individual vehicles in the test fuel
fleet (as opposed to a composite average) was 9.33 miles per gallon, which lies within
the confidence interval for the control fleet.
V. Nonroad Test Program
In addition to vehicle testing, the workgroup recommended a testing program to
evaluate the performance of Phase II RFG with nonroad engines. The test fuel used for
nonroad engine testing was the same as the test fuel used with vehicle fleets. The
nonroad test program included 177 pieces of gasoline-powered equipment that
encompassed 11 types of utility, lawn, and garden equipment, and included both two-
17
-------
cycle and four-cycle engine designs. In addition, two-cycle and four-cycle marine
engines were tested by Mercury Marine at six sites.
A. Utility, Lawn, and Garden Equipment
The Arlington County, Virginia Department of Parks and Natural Resources
provided the equipment and resources to evaluate utility, lawn, and garden equipment.
Their equipment fleet consisted of 177 units ranging from three horsepower handheld
trimmers to 17 horsepower tractors, with both two-cycle and four-cycle engine designs.
The engines listed in the following table were used for in use testing of Phase II
RFG. Most of the engines are used in brush cutters, mowers, gas-powered hedge
trimmers, chainsaws, backpack leaf blowers, generators, rototillers, edgers, vacuum
blowers, and pruners, and had horsepower ratings between three and eight. Four units
are small tractors with horsepower ratings between 12 and 17. Eighteen of the 177
units meet EPA's emission regulations for small handheld engines (40 CFR 90); all 18
units were manufactured by Stihl.
Table 5 - Arlington County Nonroad Engines
Number of Units
60
35
30
25
15
4
4
4*
Engine Make
Stihl
Kawasaki
Briggs and Stratton
Tecumseh
Honda
Tanaka
Yamaha
Kohler
Engine Type
two-cycle
two-cycle
four-cycle
four-cycle
four-cycle
two-cycle
two-cycle
four-cycle
' Tractors
The test fuel for this equipment was the summer fuel oxygenated with MTBE.
The fuel was delivered on August 28, 1998 to a storage tank at the County water
treatment plant.. To aid equipment refueling, a pickup truck was used as a mobile
fueling station. A 100 gallon fuel tank in the back of the truck was used to fuel two-
cycle engines, and six five-gallon cans were used to fuel four-cycle engines. The truck
tank and cans were refilled at the main storage tank as necessary. Each refill of the
100 gallon tank included the addition of two-cycle engine oil at a gasoline/oil ratio of 40
18
-------
to one. During the test period, Quaker State Itasca two-cycle engine oil was used.
The performance testing consisted of fueling the engines with Phase II RFG and
operating them normally. The fuel was replenished as needed. Any performance
problems encountered were to be reported. The testing period began on September 1
and continued until the test fuel was expended during the third week in November. The
amount of use for each piece of equipment was not recorded. The primary activities
during the testing period consisted of lawn maintenance, leaf removal, and ball field
maintenance.
During the testing period, 185 gallons of Phase II RFG were consumed.
Assuming a maximum fuel consumption rate of about one-half gallon per hour, testing
consisted of more than 370 hours of operation.
No performance-related incidents occurred during the test period. The
equipment supervisor reported that there were no perceptible changes in engine
performance and no indications of leaks.
B. Marine Engines
Approximately 3,800 gallons of summer fuel oxygenated with MTBE were
provided to four Mercury Marine testing facilities in Wisconsin, Florida, and Oklahoma,
and two materials testing locations in Illinois and North Carolina. The engines tested
ranged from small two-cycle, 25 horsepower outboard engines to large four-cycle, 500
horsepower inboard and stern drive engines.
Small two-cycle outboard engines were tested for startability and running quality,
with storage at cool temperatures. Cool temperatures were those lower than are
typical for summer fuel. The field testing in November 1998 in Wisconsin with summer
fuel captured the temperature conditions that are characterized as the fall shoulder
season. Testing consisted of start-up, warm-up, idle quality, and running quality
phases. The engines were mounted on a dock for the four-phase test and then moved
to an outdoor storage rack for 40 hours to stabilize at ambient conditions, in a
temperature range of 35 to 55 degrees. The engines were then returned to the dock
and startability testing was conducted. No performance problems with Phase II RFG
were reported.
In addition to field testing, engine dynamometer testing was conducted with two-
cycle outboard engines. A dynamometer is a device that simulates the resistance the
engine would experience under normal operating conditions. The dynamometer tests
measured the maximum power produced using the summer test fuel and a baseline fuel
known as indolene. No noticeable difference in operating performance was found.
19
-------
Large four-cycle engines were also tested using both test and baseline fuels.
The tests measured power output using an engine dynamometer and found no
significant difference between the fuels.
Testing of fuel system materials was done by Airtex and Magnetti Morelli.
Gaskets and other fuel system materials were tested. No detrimental effects were
reported.
VI. Motorcycle Test Program
Over 1,700 gallons of summer fuel oxygenated with MTBE were provided to
Harley-Davidson for laboratory testing of six current model motorcycles, on-road
performance testing of six privately-owned motorcycles, and materials compatibility
testing. The Harley-Davidson motorcycles listed in the following table were used for
laboratory testing of Phase II RFG.
Table 6 - Harley-Davidson Motorcycles Tested in Laboratory
Number
2
2
2
Year
1997
1998
1998
Model
Sportster
FLT/HT
FLT/HT
Engine (cc)
1200
1450
1450
Fuel System
Carburetor
Carburetor
Fuel Injection
The laboratory testing consisted of performance tests on six motorcycles using
the test fuel and a baseline fuel known as indolene. Testing was conducted using a
chassis dynamometer, a device that allows the motorcycle to remain stationary while
the rear wheel turns a drum that provides resistance to simulate the resistance of the
motorcycle and rider on the highway. The rider operates the motorcycle as though it
were on the highway by shifting gears and adjusting the throttle to follow a graph on a
video screen. Acceleration, driveability, and startability were evaluated during these
tests. No significant difference in performance was observed between the baseline fuel
and Phase II RFG. ;"
On-road testing was conducted by Harley-Davidson employees on their own
Harley-Davidson motorcycles. The Harley-Davidson motorcycles listed in the following
table were used for on-road testing of Phase II RFG.
20
-------
Table 7 - Harley-Davidson Motorcycles Tested On-road
Year
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1999
Model ID
FLHT
FLHTC
FLHTCUi
FLTR
FLTRI
FLTR
Model Name
Electra Glide
Electra Glide
Classic
Ultra Classic
Road Glide
Road Glide
Road Glide
Type
Touring
Touring
Touring
Touring
Touring
Touring
Engine (cc)
1450
1450
1450
1450
1450
1450
Starting
Odometer
675
12,500
1,300
9,000
2,000
150
Accumulated
Miles
1,575
1,200
500
2,500
700
500
The test period with the summer test fuel was from mid-October until the end of
November in the Milwaukee, Wisconsin area, although summer fuel is not provided to
retail stations after September 15. The daily temperatures for the on-road testing
period are listed in Appendix N. Performance was evaluated using both the test fuel
and a commercially available fuel. No performance problems with Phase II RFG were
reported.
Materials compatibility tests were done on three sets of fuel system elastomer
components. An independent laboratory tested the components by soaking them in
both the test fuel and a baseline gasoline and then measuring size changes. Paint
finish and decal compatibility tests were also performed using the test fuel and a
baseline fuel. Finished fuel tanks were placed in an outdoor rack and each fuel was
periodically spilled over a tank during a period of three weeks to determine the effect.
No detrimental effects were identified.
VII. Conclusion
All available data indicate that consumers should experience no difference in
performance or fuel economy when Phase II RFG replaces Phase I RFG.
EPA tested in use vehicles in three cities over a period of three to five months.
The combined test fleet drove over one million miles with Phase II RFG. Out of a
combined fleet of 374 vehicles, six component-related incidents occurred during the
course of the testing program. Five of the six incidents were deemed unrelated to the
use of Phase II RFG by the relevant automobile manufacturer. In the sixth incident, the
part in question was lost and the cause of its failure could not be determined.
21
-------
No problems with starting, running, idling, acceleration, or power were reported
by any fleet. One fleet manager described his fleet's use of Phase II RFC as
transparent; fleet users and the mechanical staff saw no change or effect (see
Appendix L).
Studies have shown that incident rates increase with vehicle mileage,
irrespective of the fuel used. Vehicle maintenance is the key to good performance with
any fuel.
In a separate study, SWRI compared fuel economy with Phase II RFC to Phase I
RFG. Fuel economy was measured for 12 vehicles of various makes, ages, mileage,
and fuel delivery systems. The vehicles were driven over fixed 50 mile urban and
suburban routes. Fuel usage was determined by using a flow meter to precisely
measure the total volume of fuel consumed during the 50 mile route. The results of this
study do not indicate any statistically significant fuel economy difference between the
fuels.
The outcome of the SWRI study is consistent with other fuel economy studies,
and with EPA's analysis of test fleet fuel economy. Fuel economy is generally
proportional to the energy content of the fuel. During the past few years, studies of the
fuel economy effects of reformulated gasolines with oxygenates, including laboratory
and on-road studies, have shown that the addition of two percent oxygen, by weight, to
gasoline results in a one to three percent fuel economy loss. In this study, both
gasolines have essentially the same oxygen content and the same energy content.
Since the energy content difference between Phase I RFG and Phase II RFG is
expected to be minimal, the absence of an impact on the fuel economy measured in
this study was expected.
The Arlington County, Virginia Department of Parks and Natural Resources
provided the equipment and resources to evaluate utility, lawn, and garden equipment.
Their equipment fleet consisted of 177 units ranging from three-horsepower handheld
trimmers to 17-horsepower tractors with both two-cycle and four-cycle engine designs.
Testing began September 1 and concluded the third week in November. During the
testing period, 185 gallons of Phase II RFG were consumed. Assuming a maximum
fuel consumption rate of about one-half gallon per hour, testing consisted of more than
370 hours of operation. No performance-related incidents occurred during the test
period. The equipment supervisor reported that there were no perceptible changes in
engine performance and no indications of leaks.
Performance and materials testing was conducted with motorcycles by Harley-
Davidson and with marine engines by Mercury Marine. In both cases, outdoor testing in
Wisconsin occurred in the autumn with summer test fuel, capturing shoulder season
effects. The results indicate no performance problems with Phase II RFG.
22
-------
In summary, no difference in vehicle performance or fuel economy is expected
when Phase II RFC replaces Phase I RFG. In addition, no difference in performance is
expected with small engines, marine engines, or motorcycles.
23
-------
Appendix A
-------
Phase II RFG Implementation Workgroup Members
4/5/99
AUTOMOBILE AND ENGINE COMPANIES AND ASSOCIATIONS
Association of International Automobile Manufacturers
John Cabaniss
Daimler Chrysler Corporation
Reg Modlin
Ann Schlenker
Ford Motor Company
Walt Kreucher
Shelley Scott
General Motors
Gary Herwick
Portable Power Equipment Manufacturers Association
Don Purcell
Tecumseh Products
Roger Gault
Toyota
John Shipinski
AUTOMOBILE AND FLEET ASSOCIATIONS
American Automobile Association
David Van Sickle
National Association of Fleet Administrators
Pat O'Connor
ENVIRONMENTAL AND PUBLIC HEALTH ASSOCIATIONS
American Lung Association
Blake Early
Health Effects Institute
Robert O'Keefe
-------
Natural Resources Defense Council
Janet Hathaway
OIL AND OXYGENATE COMPANIES AND ASSOCIATIONS
BP Amoco
Bob Schaefer
American Methanol Institute
Ray Lewis
ARCO
Dan Hisey
American Petroleum Institute
Paul Argyropoulos
Ed Murphy
Equiva Services
Ron Benton
Mike Kulakowski
Information Resources, Inc.
David Holt
National Petrochemical & Refiners Association
Terry Higgins
Oxygenated Fuels Association
Charlie Drevna
Petroleum Marketers Association of America
John Huber
Renewable Fuels Association
Eric Vaughn
Service Station Dealers Association
Roy Littlefteld
Society of Independent Gasoline Marketers of America
Greg Scott
Texaco
Michael Redemer
-------
SERVICE TECHNICIANS
Service Technicians Society
David Solomon
STATES AND STATE ASSOCIATIONS
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
Ira Domsky
California Air Resources Board
Peter Venturini
Georgia Department of Natural Resources
Marlin Gottschalk
Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection
John Hornback
National Association of State Energy Officials
Frank Bishop
Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management
Arthur Marin
Ozone Transport Commission
Bruce Carhart
STAPPA/ALAPCO
Bill Becker
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Dennis Koepke
Bob Lopez
U.S. GOVERNMENT
Department of Energy
Barry McNutt
Environmental Protection Agency
Debbie Wood
-------
Appendix B
-------
Phase II RFG Implementation Workgroup
Testing Team
Paul Argyropoulos
American Petroleum Institute
John Cabaniss
Association of International Automobile Manufacturers
Bruce Carhart
Ozone Transport Commission
Jim Carter
Automotive Testing & Development Services
Bob Dinneen
Renewable Fuels Association
Roger Gault
Tecumseh Products
Larry Haslett
Environmental Protection Agency
Gary Herwick
General Motors
Jim Hyde
New York Department of Environmental Conservation
J. Harold Idell
FedEx Corporation
Bob King
Sun Company, Inc.
Dave Korotney
Environmental Protection Agency
Mike Kul?kowski
Equiva Services
Dennis Koepke
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
-------
Arthur Marin
Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management
Ed Murphy
American Petroleum Institute
Pat O'Connor
National Association of Fleet Administrators
Bob O'Keefe
Health Effects Institute
Tony Pastor
Star Enterprise
Ann Schlenker
Daimler Chrysler Corporation
John Shipinski
Toyota
Shelley Scott
Ford Motor Company
Peter Venturini
California Air Resources Board
Debbie Wood
Environmental Protection Agency
4/5/99
-------
Appendix C
-------
Phase II RFG Implementation Workgroup
Technical Steering Committee
Paul Argyropoulos
American Petroleum Institute
Barry Garelick
Environmental Protection Agency
Larry Haslett
Environmental Protection Agency
Gary Herwick
General Motors
Jim Hyde
New York Department of Environmental Conservation
Dave Korotney
Environmental Protection Agency
Mike Kulakowski
Equiva Services
Dennis Koepke
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Arthur Marin
Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management
Ed Murphy
American Petroleum Institute
Pat O'Connor
National Association of Fleet Administrators
Shelley Scott '
Ford Motor Company
Peter Venturini
California Air Resources Board
Debbie Wood
Environmental Protection Agency
4/5/99
-------
Appendix D
-------
Evaluation of On-Highway Motor Vehicles
Operated on Federal Phase II Reformulated Gasoline
I. INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this test program is to identify performance issues which may be
associated with the operation of vehicles on federal Phase II reformulated gasoline
(RFC), before the fuel is introduced beginning January 1, 2000. This test program will
be supplemented with data gathered in California's Compatibility and Performance
Study for California Phase 2 RFC.
To evaluate the performance of Phase II RFG in current vehicles, in-use studies
are proposed. The studies will monitor the use of Phase II RFG in various vehicles
driven on their normal daily routes. Control fleets that match the size and make up of
the test fleets, operated on market-available gasoline, will also be monitored for
comparative analyses. Four methods of data collection will be employed for the
purpose of performance evaluation:
(1) Records of incidents related to driveability and performance reported by
drivers or users.
(2) Visual inspection surveys taken on a bimonthly basis for each study vehicle.
(3) Maintenance records, both historical and during the study period.
(4) Individual vehicle volumetric fuel consumption and cumulative mileage or
actual odometer changes.
All data will be statistically analyzed to quantify impacts which are specific to the use of
Phase II RFG. The test program will cover a wintertime fueling period followed by a
spring and early summer fueling period with the transition occurring as would normally
occur in accordance with existing and future regulatory requirements.
II OBJECTIVE
The objective of this test program is to evaluate the performance of vehicles
currently in use, when operated on Phase II RFG, as compared to being operated on
currently available Phase I RFG. If performance issues associated with Phase II fuel
are identified during the course of the study, the test program will include a more
specific investigation of these issues.
-------
Ill VEHICLES
a. Description of vehicles
Privately and/or publicly-owned fleets of vehicles will be solicited to participate in
this test program. These fleets will be located in Boston, Chicago, and Houston. Fleets
in each city will be divided into test and control fleets of approximately equal size; there
will be approximately 100 vehicles in Boston and Chicago, and 200 vehicles in
Houston, for a total of 400. The technology and age distribution of the vehicles will
approximate the national distribution, to the extent possible.
b. Vehicle inspections
Before the Phase II RFC performance study begins, each study vehicle shall
undergo a visual inspection. As described in the instructions for the various data
collection forms, the inspection will verify the identity and classification of the vehicle, as
well as identify obvious defects which should be noted and considered during the
analysis phase of the study. A "Vehicle Description Log" will be used to record the
identity and classification of the test and control vehicles. A preliminary "Fuel System
Inspection Log" will also be completed for each study vehicle before testing begins to
document the cpndition of the fuel system components. The Vehicle Description Log
and Fuel System Inspection Log will be completed by EPA. EPA inspectors will be
trained on how to properly perform vehicle inspections and will be specifically instructed
not to disturb or tamper with any of the components under study.
IV FUELS
a. Description of fuels
For these studies the baseline fuels will be the gasolines normally purchased by
the fleet operators. The Phase II RFG which will be used in these studies should meet
all the standards for Phase II RFG as listed in 40 CFR Part 80, Section 41, and contain
detergent additives approved by EPA at commercial doses. The target properties for
the test fuels are shown in Table 1 below. The actual test fuel properties will be
approved by an executive review committee before the test fuels are produced.
-------
Table 1 - Target Test Fuel Properties
Oxygen, wt%
RVP, psi
Sulfur, ppm
Aromatics, vol%
Olefins, vol%
Benzene, vol%
T10, °F
T50, °F
T90, °F
(E200, vol%)
(E300, vol%)
Octane, (R+M)/2
Summer
MTBE
2.1
6.6
150
24
11
0.8
133
197
320
(52)
(84)
>87
Summer
MTBE
+TAME
1.6 (MTBE)
0.5 (TAME)
6.6
150
24
11
0.8
133
196
320
(52)
(84)
>87
Winter
MTBE
2.1
12.8
310
23
12
0.9
110
195
324
(53)
(83)
>87
Winter
Ethanol
3.5
13.3
300
25
12
0.8
108
191
324
(55)
(83)
>87
These fuel properties represent typical properties expected for Phase II RFC complying
on average. Each fuel in the table will be used in a different city, and it is possible that
not all fuels shown in the table will be required in this study. Also, to ensure that the
fuel represents that which will actually be sold in RFG areas, the fuel should be
produced from proportions of refinery blending components similar to proportions
expected in 2000. These blending proportions are shown in Table 2.
Table 2 - Blendstock blending fractions .
Reformate
St. run naphtha
Isomerate
FCC naphtha
Hydrocrackate
Alkylate
Dimate
Raffinate
Maximum volume percent
of blendstock in final test fuel
29
15
4
35
4
18
1
3
Finally, all test fuel properties must fall within prescribed ranges to ensure that the fuels
represent expected average Phase II RFG fuels and meet ASTM guidelines. The
-------
allowable ranges for summer and winter fuels are shown in Table 3. No test fuel
properties can fall outside the ranges given in Table 3.
Table 3 - Allowable ranges for Test Fuels
Oxygen
RVP, psi
Sulfur, ppm
Aromatics, vol%
Olefins, vol%
Benzene, vol%
T10, °F
T50, °F
T90, °F
Summer
MTBE
2.0 +
6.4-6.8
125-175
23 - 25
10-12
0.6-1.0
125-145
190-210
305 - 335
Summer
MTBE
+TAME
2.0 +
6.4-6.8
125-175
23-25
10-12
0.6-1.0
125-145
190-210
305 - 335
Winter
MTBE
2.0 +
12.3-13.3
285 - 335
22-24
11 -13
0.6-1.1
100-120
190-210
305 - 335
Winter
Ethanol
2.0 +
12.8-13.8
275 - 325
24-26
11 -13
0.6-1.0
100-120
180-200
305 - 335
A switch from the winter test fuel to the summer test fuel will occur in each area
at a time designated by EPA. At that time, the summer test fuel and the summer
control fuel will be added to whatever amounts of winter fuels are in the fleet operator's
underground tanks.
b. Fuel storage and distribution
A central location may be used to receive and store the test fuel for each test
fleet. The test fuel will be shipped by tank truck to the fleet operators. A fuel distributor
will be designated to deliver the test fuel to locations where the test fuel is dispensed.
c. Fuel sampling and analysis
EPA-appointed inspectors will obtain samples from the bulk storage tanks of the
test fuel and/or control fuel at the fueling facilities. Fuelsamples are to be taken using
approved EPA procedures whenever fuel is deposited into the fleet operator's storage
tanks, or on a bimonthly basis, whichever is more frequent. Test fuel and control (local)
fuel will be sampled at the same time.
Whenever a performance-related problem is reported via the Driveability Incident
Log, a sample of fuel from the vehicle's tank should be taken. EPA will provide the fleet
operators all the equipment needed to collect the fuel samples, as well as protocols for
handling and shipping the sample to EPA for analysis.
-------
V DATA COLLECTION
Vehicle operators will be provided with fuel in such a way that they are unaware
of which type of fuel (test or control) they are using. This may require that local fuel be
added to bulk storage tanks for centralized refueling by each control fleet. Operators
will be ordered to refuel only at approved dispensers during the period of the study.
Operators will then drive the vehicles on the routes typically followed for that vehicle or
fleet.
Four types of data will be collected for both test and control vehicles:
1. EPA inspectors will visually inspect each study vehicle bimonthly. Upon
completion of each inspection, the EPA inspectors will complete and submit
the Fuel System Inspection Log to document the condition of the vehicle's
fuel system. The Fuel System Inspection Log will be completed and
submitted by EPA inspectors on a continuous basis so data may be
processed as soon as possible.
2. A "Driveability Incident Log" will be completed by the fleet operator's
maintenance personnel for any potentially fuel-related performance problems
reported by the vehicle operator. Upon a report of an incident (component
failure or performance problems) the vehicle will be removed from service
and inspected by fleet maintenance personnel to determine if the problem is
potentially fuel related. The vehicle will be repaired according to normal
procedures, and any replaced parts will be retained. If possible, a fuel
sample will also be taken from the gas tank. A copy of the repair invoice
should be attached to the "Driveability Incident Log" and submitted to EPA for
data retrieval, along with the replaced parts and fuel sample. The
"Driveability Incident Log" along with the repair invoice will be used to
determine the number and causes for fuel related performance problems.
3. The third method of data collection is the review of historical maintenance
and repair records obtained from fleet operators. Electronic retrieval of .this .
data is possible from some of the fleets. Some fleets may have only paper
copies of records. Any available historical records should be retrieved and
provided to EPA prior to the commencement of the study. Records of
maintenance and repairs occurring during the study period should be
collected monthly and provided to EPA for processing.
4. The fourth method of data collection will consist of a "Refueling Report" to be
completed by the fleet operator's fueling personnel for each test and control
vehicle, each time fueling occurs. The Refueling Report will include the date,
the odometer reading, and the amount of fuel provided. A summary of
-------
historical data on fuel consumed and the change in odometer readings over a
stated period for test and control vehicles will be provided by the fleet
operator.
VI DATA ANALYSIS AND REPORTING
Survey data and maintenance records should be provided by the fleet operator
every month to EPA. A final report will be issued by EPA following the conclusion of
the study. It is envisioned that the final report will include responses totaled for each
survey and maintenance field and that each response should be reported as a fraction,
or rate, of total responses for each survey and maintenance response category. The
data should be analyzed independently for test groups and control groups. At a
minimum, study results should be plotted as the incidence rates in the test group versus
control group for each response category and each vehicle or equipment classification
over the study period.
-------
FLEET DESCRIPTION
(completed by EPA representatives)
Fleet Name: Fleet Code:
Fleet contact person:
Phone Number: ( )
Street address:
City: Zip Code:
Winter Fueling - Start date: / / (mm/dd/yy hhmm, i.e. 02/18/98 0645 - 24 hr clock)
Summer Fueling Start: / / (mm/dd/yy hhmm)
7
-------
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION
(completed by EPA reps)
Fleet:
Date:
Veh. year:
Odom:
Mfr:
Model:
Inspector:
Veh lie #:
VIN:
Trans: Auto or Man Veh type: Car or Truck or MC Fuel group: D2 or
Body: (sticker on door or door jam)
Build Date: GVW:
Engine compartment: (sticker under hood)
Engine Family: Emiss Cert yr:
Fuel System: Fuel inj or TBI or Carb
#Cyls.
Dispm't:
liters or cu.in.
Emission control device check:
CCO:_
Other:
DVAS:
EWL:
TAG:
OC:
EVP:
PCV:
EGR:
02S:
TWC:
EFE:
FR:
AI = air inj sys DVAS = diverter valve air sw. TAG = thermostatic air cleaner
PCV = positive c'case vent valve EGR = exh gas recirc valve O2S = oxygen sensor
EWL = engine warning or check eng light OC = oxidation cat TWC = 3-way cat
FR = fuel filler neck restrictor
Comments:
EVP = evap. emiss sys
CCO = computer control
EFE = early fuel evap sys
Vehicle fleet records:
Odo: Winter Start:
Summer Start:
End Test:
Fuel quantity used: Winter Test:
Summer Test:
Fuel Econ:
Winter/Test: _
Summer/Test:
MPG
MPG
Removed from program - reason:
Ending date, if removed from program:
Winter/Historical: MPG
Summer/Historical: MPG
8
-------
Fleet:
Veh Year:
Odom:
FUEL SYSTEM INSPECTION LOG
(completed by EPA reps)
Date:
Inspector:
Make:
Model:
Fuel group: D2 Or D3 (circle one)
Veh lie #:
Fuel System Inspection:
Fuel Tank
Fuel Lines and Hoses
Fuel Filter(s)
Fuel Pump
Fuel in Crankcase, smell dipstick
Pass/Fail
(circle one)
P / F
P / F
P / F
P / F
Severity (set
(circle one)
S / D / R)
S / D / R)
S / D / R)
S / D / R)
Yes or No
Fuel Odor(s)
Yes or No
Comments:
Fuel Injection System:
Fuel Injectors:
Throttle body injector unit:
Other fuel inj. components:
Comments:
Pass/Fail Severity (seep or drip or run)
P / F S / D / R)
P / F S / D / R)
P / F S / D / R)
Carbureted fuel systems: yes / no
Pass/Fail
Carburetor P / F
Accelerator pump:
Comments:
P / F
Severity (seep or drip or run)
S / D / R)
S / D / R)
-------
DRIVEABILITY INCIDENT LOG
(completed by fleet operator)
Fleet:
Date of driveability incident:
Driver:
Veh lie #:
Odom:
Veh. make:
Model:
Fuel group: D2 Or D3 (circle one)
Weather conditions on date of incident:
Yr:
Type of Performance Problems:
If a driveability problem ocurred, please provide a description
Hesitation:
Surge:
Stall:
Odor:
Noise:
Other
Driving Mode - when performance problems occurred:
Highway Driving: Yes or No City Driving: Yes or No
Cold Starting: Yes or No Hot Starting: Yes or No
Morning Driving: Yes or No Afternoon Driving: Yes or No Evening Driving: Yes or No
Idle: Yes or No Acceleration: Yes or No Cruise: Yes or No
Additional Comments: .
Date of resulting (or next) vehicle inspection:
Inspector:
Odom:
10
-------
Fuel System Repair Summary
(completed by fleet maintenance personnel)
Fleet: Name: Fuel group: D2 or D3 (circle one)
Vehlic#: Veh. make: Model: Yr:
Repair Date: / / Odom:
Description of malfunction and symptoms:
Did the repairs and adjustments involve any of the following components? Yes or No (circle one)
If yes, please describe.
Fuel tank: '
Fuel lines, hoses:
Fuel filter(s):
Fuel pump:
Fuel injectors:
Fuel inj sys: _
Carburetor:
Accel pump:
Fuel in Crankcase:
Seals:
How was the problem diagnosed?
Was a repair made to correct the problem? Yes or No
If yes, what repair was made?
If repairs were made, were the replaced parts kept? Yes or No or Not applicable
Was a fuel sample taken following the incident? Yes or No
If yes, from which of the following tanks was the sample taken?
From vehicle's tank? Y or N From the dispenser/storage tank where vehicle was last refueled: Y or N
11
-------
VEHICLE REFUELING REPORT
(completed by driver or other vehicle refilling personnel)
Veh Lie #: Make: Model:
Name Date Odometer Gallons added Gasoline tank/dispenser
12
-------
BULK STORAGE REFUELING REPORT
(completed by fleet operator)
Name Date Gallons added Storage tank used
13
-------
Appendix E
-------
Fuels Comparison
Fuel Parameter
RVP (psi)
Sulfur (ppm)
Oxygen (w%)
Aromatics (vol%)
Olefins (vol%)
Benzene (vol%)
E200 (%)
E300 (%)
T50 (F)
T90 (F)
Conventional
Gasoline1
8.7/7.8
339
<0.5
32
13
1.5
41
83
Phase I
RFG2
8.0/7.1
305
2.1
27
12
0.95
49
87
Phase II
RFG3
6.7
140
2.1
25
12
0.95
49
87
CaRFG Phase 2
Flat Limits
7.0
40
1.8-2.2
25
6.0
1.0
210
300
CaF
Marl
7.0
30
1.9
24
4.9
0.81
206
298
Based on statutory baseline.
2 Estimate used to set standards.
3 Estimate used to set standards.
4 March, April, and May 1997 production weighted average.
-------
Appendix F
-------
Phase II RFG Fleet Testing Program
STATEMENT OF WORK
BACKGROUND
One of the requirements of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments is the reformulated
gasoline (RFG) program. The purpose of the RFG program is to improve air quality by requiring
that gasoline sold in certain areas of the country be reformulated to reduce emissions of toxics and
tropospheric ozone-forming compounds, as specified by section 211(k). Section 211(k) mandates
that RFG be sold in specific metropolitan areas with the most severe summertime ozone levels;
RFG must also be sold in any ozone nonattainment area reclassified as a severe area, and in other
areas that choose to participate or "opt in" to the program. The Clean Air Act further requires that
conventional gasoline sold in the rest of the country not become any more polluting than it was in
1990 by requiring that each refiner's and importer's gasoline be as clean, on average, as it was in
1990. This has resulted in regulatory requirements referred to as the anti-dumping program.
Phase I of the RFG program began in January 1995 and will be replaced by Phase II in January
2000. Phase II RFG will achieve even greater reductions in volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
oxides of nitrogen (NOx), and toxics than Phase I.
The Phase II RFG Implementation Workgroup has been established by the Clean Air Act
Advisory Committee's Mobile Source Technical Review Subcommittee. To ensure a wide range
of input on the implementation of Phase II RFG, this workgroup has broad stakeholder
representation, including vehicle and fuel users, vehicle and engine manufacturers, the fuel
industry, environmental and public health groups, and state agencies and associations. The goal
of the workgroup is to ensure the smoothest transition possible to Phase II RFG by working
together to gather data and to communicate that data to the public.
The workgroup has recommended a fleet testing program to evaluate performance and fuel
economy with in-use vehicles operated on Phase II RFG, compared to being operated on currently
available Phase I RFG. The test plan developed by the workgroup for the fleet testing program is
included as Attachment A. The purpose of the fleet testing program is to determine whether any
vehicle performance issues exist that may be associated with the operation of vehicles on Phase
II RFG, compared to Phase I RFG, before the fuel is introduced into commerce by January 1, 2000.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this work assignment is to provide EPA with vehicle performance and fuel
economy data from fleet testing conducted according to the plan described in Attachment A.
EPA and the fleet operator expect that the fleet operator will be provided with test fuel by
a gasoline manufacturer on an as needed basis up to a quantity consistent with the fleet operator's
historical monthly consumption noted below, beginning in June 1998 and ending in August 1998
at the fleet operator's facility located at Houston Power and Light (hereinafter "facility").
-------
EPA will provide to the fleet operator all data collection forms to be used in the fleet testing
program. These forms are included in Attachment A. EPA will provide training to the fleet operator
regarding the necessary procedures required to complete the " Driveability Incident Log" and
"Fueling Report" forms.
EPA, in cooperation with the fleet operator, will complete the "Fuel System Inspection Logs"
on a bimonthly basis.
Technical support provided by EPA may include fuel system evaluations, and engineering
and engine/fuel system repair consultations.
Task 1 -- Identify appropriate test fleet
The fleet operator shall identify an appropriate test fleet, including test and control vehicles.
Task 2 - Vehicle inspection
The fleet operator shall make the test fleet vehicles available for inspection by EPA at
reasonable times on a bimonthly basis.
Task 3 - Incident reports
The fleet operator shall provide a completed "Driveability Incident Log" form and related
information to EPA for each incident in which a vehicle that is part of this program is removed from
service to diagnose a complaint about a condition that is possibly related to fuel. A sample of fuel
from the vehicle's tank shall be taken. If a repair is made, a copy of the repair order or invoice shall
accompany the log form. Any replaced parts that can be linked with the incident logged shall be
tagged and retained by the fleet operator for analysis by EPA.
The fleet operator shall provide access to past and current maintenance records, if
available, for each vehicle in the program.
Task 4 - Fuel economy data
The fleet operator shall provide EPA with fleet aggregate volumetric fuel consumption
records on a monthly basis.
The fleet operator shall record individual vehicle fuel consumption and changes in odometer
readings. The initial odometer reading shall occur when a vehicle first enters this testing program.
The date, odometer reading, and gallons delivered shall be recorded at each fueling.
The fleet operator shall provide a summary of recent historical data (1996 and 1997) related
to fuel economy for each test program vehicle for which valid data exists. The data are volumetric
fuel consumption and cumulative mileage, or actual odometer changes, both over a stated period.
-------
Task 5 - Fuel
The fleet operator shall take reasonable measures to ensure that vehicles intended to use
test fuel do not receive other fuel. The fleet operator may use other fuels in the event that test fuel
is not available, in emergency situations. Likewise, the fleet operator shall take reasonable steps
to ensure that participating control vehicles do not receive test fuel.
The fleet operator shall allow EPA to obtain samples from its bulk storage tanks of the test
fuel and control fuel at the fueling facilities whenever fuel is deposited into the fleet operator's
storage tanks, or on a bimonthly basis, whichever is more frequent. Refueling receptacles shall
be approved vapor recovery systems if required by state law.
Attachment A: Test plan
-------
Appendix G
-------
MPR-17-1998 22=23
P. 03
Certificate of Analysis
PHILLIPS CHEMICAL COMPANY
A WVISWN OF PHILUPS P€Tf«X£UM COMPANY
SPECIALTY CHEMICALS
P.O. BOX 968
BORGER TX 79008-0968
TESTS
API Gravity
Specific Gravity, 60/60
Sulfur ppm
MTBE, LV%
Reid Vapor Pressure
Benzene Content, LV%
OXYGENATED TEST GAS
LOT D-340
RESULTS
61.85
0.7318
298
11.7
12.8
0.98
SPECIFICATIONS
Report
Report
285 - 335
11.0-12.0
123-13.3
0.6-1.0
DATE OF SHIPMENT
03-06-98
CUSTOMER ORDER NO.
98BO-1
INV./REQN. NO.
480659
TRLR #380
METHOD
ASTM D-1298
ASTM D-4052
ASTM D-2622
ASTMD-4815
ASTM D-323
DISTILLATION. D-86 "F
IBP 86.2
5% 96.7
10% 106.5
20% 1226
30% 143.3
40% 164.8
50% 190.3
60% 222.1
70% 257.1
80% 291.5
90% 331.3
95% 367.9
EP 409.3
Loss 1.7
Residue 0.9
HYDROCARBON TYPE, VOL. %
Aromatics 23.85
*0tefins 10.5
this will be modified for future shipments.
Research Octane Number 95.5
Motor Octane Number 85.9
Antiknock Index 90.7
DGD:jam
03/18/98
MF6500
ASTM D-86
100-120
190-210
305 - 335
SPEC
22-24
11 -13
Report
Report
Report
ASTMD-1319
ASTM D-2699
ASTM D-2700
FOBM WB6.N W-
TOTAL P.03
-------
,~1ftR-17-1998 22=23
P.02
Certificate of Analysis
PHILUPS CHEMICAL COMPANY
A DIVISION OF PHILUPS PETROLEUM COMPANY
SPECIALTY CHEMICALS
P.O. BOX 968
BORGER. TX 79008-0968
TESTS
API Gravity
Specific Gravity, 60/60
Sulfur ppm
Ethanol. LV%
Reid Vapor Pressure
Benzene Content, LV%
DISTILLATION, D-86 °F
IBP
5%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
95%
EP
Loss
Residue
HYDROCARBON TYPE. VOL. %
Aromatics
Olefins
Saturates
Research Octane Number
Motor Octane Number
Antiknock Index
DGDijam
03/18/98
MF6500
DATE OF SHIPMENT
03-06-98
CUSTOMER ORDER NO.
98EG-1
INV./REQN. NO.
480740
TRLR *334
OXYGENATED TEST GAS
RESULTS
59.6
0.7406
309
9.74
13.1
0.999
88.7
101.6
110.4
128.3
145.2
155.4
182.7
236.9
266.5
298.6
335.3
374.4
411.6
1.7
1.0
252
11.0
95.25
85.1
90.2
LOT D-368
SPECIFICATIONS
Report
Report
275 - 325
9.5-10.5
12.8-13.8
0.6-1.0
100-120
180-200
305-335
SPEC
24-26
11 -13
Report
Report
Report
METHOD
ASTM D-1298
ASTM D-4052
ASTM D-4294
Chromatography
ASTM D-323
ASTM D-86
ASTM D-1319
ASTM D-2699
ASTM D-2700
FORM 8828-N 04-34
-------
Certificate of Analysis
PHILLIPS CHEMICAL COMPANY
A DIVISION OF PHILUPS PETROLEUM COMPANY
SPECIALTY CHEMICALS
P.O. BOX 968
BORGER, TX 79008-0968
DATE OF SHIPMENT
CUSTOMER ORDER NO.
INV./REQN. NO.
MFC DATE; 05-29-98
TESTS
API Gravity
Specific Gravity, 60/60
Sulfur, ppm
MTBE, lv%
Reid Vapor Pressure
Benzene Content, lv%
OXYGENATED TEST GAS
LOT D-517 (AMENDED^
RESULTS
59.4
0.7414
155
11.2
6.8
1.0
SPECIFICATIONS
Report
Report
125-175
1 1 - 1~2
6.4-6.8
0.6-1.0
METHOD
ASTMD-1298
ASTM D-4052
ASTM D-2622
ASTM D-4815
ASTM D-323
DISTILLATION. D-86 °F
IBP 105.0
5% 129.2
10% 139.7
20% 154.6
30% 169.4
40% 186.1
50% 205.7
60% 228.7
70% 252.1
80% 279.5
90% 312.5
95% 343.2
EP 388.7
Loss 1.4
Residue 0.9
HYDROCARBON TYPE. VOL. %
Aromatics 24.5
Olefins 12
Saturates
Research Octane Number 96.2
Motor Octane Number 85.7
ASTM D-86
125-145
190-210
305 - 335
ASTMD-1319
23-25
10-12
Report
Report
ASTM D-2699
ASTM D-2700
DGD:jam
06/29/98
MF6500
FORM M26-N CU
-------
flUG-12-1998 06=18
3>
m
Certificate of Analysis
PHILLIPS CHEMICAL
COMPANY
A DIVISION OF PHILLIPS PETROLEUM COMPANY
SPECIALTY CHEMICALS
P.O. BOX 968
BORGER, TX 79008-0968
OXYGENATED TEST GAS ( EPA J (21
FESTS
API Gravity
Specific Gravity, 60/60
Sulfur ppm
MTBE
TAME
,LV%
. LB%
Oxygen Content
Oxidation Stability(min)
Existent Gums (mg/100ml)
Reid Vapor Pressure
TEL (ml/gal)
Benzene Content, LV%
RESULTS
60.18
0.7382
169
10.81
3.288
2.4
1440+
.6
6.75
0.001
1.0
LOT D-628
SPECIFICATIONS
Report
Report
125-175
8-10
2-4
Report
1440 min
<5 washed
6.3-6.9
0.005 Max.
0.6-1.0
DISTILLATION. D-86 T
IBP
5%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
95%
EP
Loss
Residue
103.6
130.0
138.5
150.4
161.9
175.1
192.7
215.2
242.0
271.8
308.2
335.8
382.3
0.4
1.0
123-143
186-206
305 - 335
HYDROCARBON TYPE. VOL. %
Aromatics
Olefins
Research Octane Number
Motor Octane Number
Antiknock Index
23.5,
13.0
96.3
85.7
91
22-25
10-13
Report
Report
>87
P. 02
DATE OF SHIPMENT
CUSTOMER ORDER NO.
INV./REQN. NO.
METHOD
ASTM D-1298
ASTM D-4052
ASTM D-2622
ASTM D-4815
Chromatography
ASTM D-525
ASTM D-381
ASTM D-323
ASTM D-3237
ASTM D-86
ASTM D-1319
ASTM D-2699
ASTM D-2700
DGD:teh
08/03/58
MF6500
-------
Appendix H
-------
Appendix H
Fuel Analyses conducted by the EPA National Vehicle and Fuels Emissions Laboratory
Page Sample location Date
sason
Test/control
Comments
— --- —
H1
H2
H3
H4
H5
H6
H7
Elk Grove Village
Elk Grove Village
Elk Grove Village
Elk Grove Village
Elk Grove Village
Phillips/Borger
Phillips/Borger
3/17/98
5/6/98
3/17/98
5/6/98
5/6/98
6/29/98
6/29/98
winter
winter
winter
winter
winter
summer
summer
control
control
test
test
test
test
test
after 1st fuel delivery
after 2nd fuel delivery
after 1 st fuel delivery
after 2nd fuel delivery
from car 238 at fuel
pump change
batch D628
MTBE + TAME
batchD517
MTBE only
H8 Houston 9/4/98 summer test
H9 Houston 9/4/98 summer control
H10 Houston 9/4/98 summer control
tests include gum and
peroxides
tests include gum and
peroxides
tests include acidity
-------
NVFEL Fuel Analysis - H1
FTAG: 7768 Village of Elk Grove - control fuel - commercial RFG1 - 3/17/98
CODE TEST RESULT
552 MTBE by OFID 0.084
55 MTBE by OFID 0.46
56 ETBE by OFID 0
562 ETBE by OFID 0
532 Ethanol by OFID 8.5
534 Ethanol by OFID 3.178
57 TAME by OFID 0
572 TAME by OFID 0
421 Sulfur in Gasoline by ASTM D 2622 219
62 Vapor Pressure by Appendix E Method 3 12.21
65 Percent Evaporated at 200 Degrees F 49
66 Percent Evaporated at 300 Degrees F 84.9
48 Aromatics in Gasoline MSD D5769 26.459
49 Olefmsin by FIA D-1319-93 2.538
64 Benzene in Gasoline by ASTM D 3606 0.8479
63 Benzene in Gasoline by MSD D5769 0.947
46 Aromatics by FIA D-1319-93 21.3
531 Ethanol by MSD (Screen) 10.29
551 MTBE by MSD (Screen) 0.33
561 ETBE by MSD (Screen) 0
571 TAME by MSD (Screen) 0
69 Specific Gravity @ 60 Degrees F 0.738829
692 Degrees API 60.17
691 Density @ 60 deg F 0.738099
101 D 86 Initial Boiling Point 88
110 10 Percent 114.2
150 50 Percent 204.4
190 90 Percent 325.69
200 End Point 398.1
201 Residue 1
202 Total Recovery 97.09
203 Loss 1.89
592 Volume Percent Oxygenates by MSD 10.62
541 Methanol by MSD (Screen) 0
591 Weight Percent Oxygen by MSD 3.6
543 Methanol by OFID 0
533 Ethanol by 4815 8.45
585 t-Butanol by OFID 0
588 DIPE by OFID 0
589 Isobutanol by OFID 0
5802 n-Butanol by OFID 0
593 Volume Percent Oxygenates by OFID 8.97
59 Weight Percent Oxygen by OFID 3.26
225 Copper Corrosion D-130-94 1a
UNITS
Oxy Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Oxy Percent
Volume Percent
Oxy Percent
Volume Percent
Oxy Percent
Parts Per Million
PSIA
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
60/60F
Degrees API
g/cm3 @ 60 deg F
Degrees F
Degrees F
Degrees F
Degrees F
Degrees F
ml
ml
ml
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Weight Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Weight Percent
Designation
-------
NVFEL Fuel Analysis - H2
FTAG: 7769 Village of Elk Grove - control fuel - commercial RFG1 - 5/6/98
CODE TEST RESULT
55 MTBE by OFID 0.37
552 MTBE by OFID 0.067
562 ETBE by OFID 0
56 ETBE by OFID 0
534 Ethanol by OFID 3.259
532 Ethanol by OFID 8.75
572 TAME by OFID 0
57 TAME by OFID 0
421 Sulfur in Gasoline by ASTM D 2622 246
62 Vapor Pressure by Appendix E Method 3 11.529
65 Percent Evaporated at 200 Degrees F 47.6
66 Percent Evaporated at 300 Degrees F 83
48 Aromatics in Gasoline MSD D5769 26.285
49 Olefmsin by FIA D-1319-93 2.805
64 Benzene in Gasoline by ASTM D 3606 0.8289
63 Benzene in Gasoline by MSD D5769 0.91
46 Aromatics by FIA D-1319-93 22.1
531 Ethanol by MSD (Screen) 10.06
551 MTBE by MSD (Screen) 0
561 ETBE by MSD (Screen) 0
571 TAME by MSD (Screen) 0
69 Specific Gravity @ 60 Degrees F . 0.74145
692 Degrees API 59.34
691 Density @ 60 deg F 0.74072
101 D86 Initial Boiling Point 90.29
110 10 Percent 120
150 50 Percent 210.8
190 90 Percent 333.89
200 End Point 404.89
201 Residue 1.3
202 Total Recovery 96.9
203 Loss 1.8
541 Methanol by MSD (Screen) 0
592 Volume Percent Oxygenates by MSD 10.06
591 Weight Percent Oxygen by MSD 3.47
543 Methanol by OFID 0
533 Ethanol by 4815 8.87
585 t-Butanol by OFID 0
588 DIPE by OFID 0
589 Isobutanol by OFID 0
5802 n-Butanol by OFID 0
593 Volume Percent Oxygenates by OFID 9.12
59 Weight Percent Oxygen by OFID 3.32
225 Copper Corrosion D-130-94 1a
UNITS
Volume Percent
Oxy Percent
Oxy Percent
Volume Percent
Oxy Percent
Volume Percent
Oxy Percent
Volume Percent
Parts Per Million
PSIA
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
60/60F
Degrees API
g/cm3 @ 60 deg F
Degrees F
Degrees F
Degrees F
Degrees F
Degrees F
ml
ml
ml
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Weight Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume.Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Weight Percent
Designation
-------
NVFEL Fuel Analysis - H3
FTAG: 7770 Village of Elk Grove - test fuel - Phillips RFG2 - 3/17/98
CODE TEST RESULT
552 MTBE bv OFID 0
55 MTBE by OFID 0
56 ETBEbyOFID 0
562 ETBE by OFID 0
534 Ethanol by OFID 3.891
532 Ethanol by OFID 10.44
572 TAME by OFID 0
57 TAME by OFID 0
421 Sulfur in Gasoline by ASTM D 2622 308
62 Vapor Pressure by Appendix E Method 3 12.599
65 Percent Evaporated at 200 Degrees F 52.299
66 Percent Evaporated at 300 Degrees F 81.4
48 Aromatics in Gasoline MSD D5769 24.968
49 Olefinsin by FIA D-1319-93 7.967
64 Benzene in Gasoline by ASTM D 3606 0.884
46 Aromatics by FIA D-1319-93 21.1
63 Benzene in Gasoline by MSD D5769 0.989
531 Ethanol by MSD (Screen) 11.31
551 MTBE by MSD (Screen) 0
561 ETBE by MSD (Screen) 0
571 TAME by MSD (Screen) 0
69 Specific Gravity @ 60 Degrees F 0.74048
692 Degrees API 59.59
691 Density @ 60 deg F 0.73975
101 D86 Initial Boiling Point 85.29
110 10 Percent 110.59
150 50 Percent 176
190 90 Percent 328.89
200 End Point 396
201 Residue 1.1
202 Total Recovery 96.59
203 Loss 2.29
592 Volume Percent Oxygenates by MSD 11.31
541 Methanol by MSD (Screen) 0
591 Weight Percent Oxygen by MSD 3.91
543 Methanol by OFID 0
533 Ethanol by 4815 10.15
585 t-Butanol by OFID 0
588 DIPE by OFID 0
589 Isobutanol by OFID 0
5802 n-Butanol by OFID 0
593 Volume Percent Oxygenates by OFID 10.44
59 Weight Percent Oxygen by OFID 3.89
225 Copper Corrosion D-130-94 1a
UNITS
Oxy Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Oxy Percent
Oxy Percent
Volume Percent
Oxy Percent
Volume Percent
Parts Per Million
PSIA
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
60/60F
Degrees API
g/cm3 @ 60 deg F 60
degF
Degrees F
Degrees F
Degrees F
Degrees F
Degrees F
ml
ml
ml
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Weight Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Weight Percent
Designation
-------
NVFEL Fuel Analysis - H4
FTAG: 7771 Village of Elk Grove - test
CODE TEST
55 MTBE by OFID
552 MTBE by .OFID
56 ETBE by OFID
562 ETBE by OFID
532 Ethanol by OFID
534 Ethanol by OFID
57 TAME by OFID
572 TAME by OFID
421 Sulfur in Gasoline by ASTM D 2622
62 Vapor Pressure by Appendix E Method
65 Percent Evaporated at 200 Degrees F
66 Percent Evaporated at 300 Degrees F
48 Aromatics in Gasoline MSD D5769
49 Olefinsin by FIA D-1319-93
64 Benzene in Gasoline by ASTM D 3606
63 Benzene in Gasoline by MSD D5769
46 Aromatics by FIA D-1319-93
531 Ethanol by MSD (Screen)
551 MTBE by MSD (Screen)
561 ETBE by MSD (Screen)
571 TAME by MSD (Screen)
69 Specific Gravity @ 60 Degrees F
692 Degrees API
691 Density @ 60 deg F
101 D86 Initial Boiling Point
110 10 Percent
150 50 Percent
190 90 Percent
200 End Point
201 Residue
202 Total Recovery
203 Loss
592 Volume Percent Oxygenates by MSD
541 Methanol by MSD (Screen)
591 Weight Percent Oxygen by MSD
543 Methanol by OFID
533 Ethanol by 4815
585 t-Butanol by OFID
588 DIPE by OFID
589 Isobutanol by OFID
5802 n-Butanol by OFID
593 Volume Percent Oxygenates by OFID
59 Weight Percent Oxygen by OFID
225 Copper Corrosion D-130-94
fuel - Phillips RFG2 - 5/6/98
RESULT UNITS
0 Volume Percent
0 Oxy Percent
0 Volume Percent
0 Oxy Percent
10.14 Volume Percent
3.776 Oxy Percent
0 Volume Percent
0 Oxy Percent
307 Parts Per Million
3 12.589 PSIA
52.799 Volume Percent
82 Volume Percent
26.158 Volume Percent
9.316 Volume Percent
0.889 Volume Percent
0.996 Volume Percent
21.8 Volume Percent
10.59 Volume Percent
0 Volume Percent
0 Volume Percent
0 Volume Percent
0.74146 60/60F
59.33
0.74073
89
111
175.3
330.5
392.6
1.1
97.4
1.5
10.59
0
3.66
0
10.09
0
0
0
0
10.14
3.77
1a
Degrees API
g/cm3 @ 60 deg F
deg F
Degrees F
Degrees F
Degrees F
Degrees F
Degrees F
ml
ml
ml
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Weight Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Weight Percent
Designation
-------
NVFEL Fuel Analysis - H5
FTAG: 7772 Village of Elk Grove - fuel from vehicle 238 - 5/6/98
CODE TEST RESULT
55 MTBE by OFID 0
552 MTBE by OFID 0
56 ETBE by OFID 0
562 ETBE by OFID 0
532 Ethanol by OFID 10.14
534 Ethanol by OFID 3.768
57 TAME by OFID 0
572 TAME by OFID 0
421 Sulfur in Gasoline by ASTM D 2622 312
62 Vapor Pressure by Appendix E Method 3 12.3
65 Percent Evaporated at 200 Degrees F 51.899
66 Percent Evaporated at 300 Degrees F 81.2
48 Aromatics in Gasoline MSD D5769 25.669
49 Olefinsin by FIA D-1319-93 9.478
64 Benzene in Gasoline by ASTM D 3606 0.896
46 Aromatics by FIA D-1319-93 22.3
63 Benzene in Gasoline by MSD D5769 1.008
531 Ethanol by MSD (Screen) 10.92
551 MTBE by MSD (Screen) 0
561 ETBE by MSD (Screen) 0
571 TAME by MSD (Screen) 0
69 Specific Gravity @ 60 Degrees F 0.74299
692 Degrees API 58.94
691 Density @ 60 deg F 0.74226
101 D 86 Initial Boiling Point 89.79
110 10 Percent 114.09
150 50 Percent 181.8
190 90 Percent 331.3
200 End Point 398.69
201 Residue 0.69
202 Total Recovery 97.2
203 Loss 2.1
541 Methanol by MSD (Screen) 0
592 Volume Percent Oxygenates by MSD 10.92
591 Weight Percent Oxygen by MSD 3.79
543 Methanol by OFID 0
533 Ethanol by 4815 10.15
585 t-Butanol by OFID 0
588 DIPE by OFID 0
589 Isobutanol by OFID 0
5802 n-Butanol by OFID 0
593 Volume Percent Oxygenates by OFID 10.14
59 Weight Percent Oxygen by OFID 3.76
225 Copper Corrosion D-130-94 1a
UNITS
Volume Percent
Oxy Percent
Volume Percent
Oxy Percent
Volume Percent
Oxy Percent
Volume Percent
Oxy Percent
Parts Per Million
PSIA
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
60/60F
Degrees API
g/cm3 @ 60 deg F
Degrees F
Degrees F
Degrees F
Degrees F
Degrees F
ml
ml
ml
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Weight Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Weight Percent
Designation
-------
NVFEL Fuel Analysis - H6
FTAG: 7661 Phillips fuel sample D-628 - RFG2 - 6/29/98
CODE TEST RESULT
55 MTBEbyOFID 10.6
552 MTBEbyOFID 1.946
562 ETBE by OFID 0
56 ETBE by OFID 0
534 Ethanol by OFID 0
532 Ethanol by OFID 0
57 TAME by OFID 2.94
572 TAME by OFID 0.485
421 Sulfur in Gasoline by ASTM D 2622 90
62 Vapor Pressure by Appendix E Method 3 9.919
65 Percent Evaporated at 200 Degrees F 54.899
66 Percent Evaporated at 300 Degrees F 88.599
48 Aromatics in Gasoline MSD D5769 25.574
49 Olefinsin by FIA D-1319-93 13.004
64 Benzene in Gasoline by ASTM D 3606 0.915
46 Aromatics by FIA D-1319-93 19.19
63 Benzene in Gasoline by MSD D5769 1.018
531 Ethanol by MSD (Screen) 0
551 MTBE by MSD (Screen) 13.13
561 ETBE by MSD (Screen) 0
571 TAME by MSD (Screen) 3.58
69 Specific Gravity @ 60 Degrees F 0.73804
692 Degrees API 60.22
691 Density @ 60 deg F 0.73732
•101 D86 Initial Boiling Point 101
110 10 Percent 137.3
150 50 Percent 190.4
190 90 Percent 303.3
200 End Point 368.3
201 Residue 1
202 Total Recovery 98.09
203 Loss 0.9
541 Methanol by MSD (Screen) 0
592 Volume Percent Oxygenates by MSD 16.71
591 Weight Percent Oxygen by MSD 2.79
543 Methanol by OFID 0
585 t-Butanol by OFID 0.04
587 sec-Butanol by OFID 0
588 DIPE by OFID 0
589 Isobutanol by OFID 0.01
5802 n-Butanol by OFID 0.04
593 Volume Percent Oxygenates by OFID 13.59
59 Weight Percent Oxygen by OFID 2.44
32 Weight Fraction Carbon ASTM D 3343-95 0.8598
73 Net Heat of Combustion ASTM D 3338-92 18605
UNITS
Volume Percent
Oxy Percent
Oxy Percent
Volume Percent
Oxy Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Oxy Percent
Parts Per Million
PSIA
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
60/60F
Degrees API
g/cm3 @ 60 deg F
Degrees F
Degrees F
Degrees F
Degrees F
Degrees F
ml
ml
ml
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Weight Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percant
Weight Percent
Weight Fraction
BTU per Pound
-------
NVFEL Fuel Analysis - H7
FTAG: 7662 Phillips fuel sample D-517 - RFG2 - 6/29/98
CODE TEST RESULT
55 MTBEbyOFID 11.34
552 MTBE by OFID 2.068
56 ETBE by OFID 0
562 ETBE by OFID 0
532 Ethanol by OFID 0
534 Ethanol by OFID 0
572 TAME by OFID 0
57 TAME by OFID 0
421 Sulfur in Gasoline by ASTM D 2622 121
62 Vapor Pressure by Appendix E Method 3 6.66
65 Percent Evaporated at 200 Degrees F 46.899
66 Percent Evaporated at 300 Degrees F 87.4
48 Aromatics in Gasoline MSD D5769 28.285
49 Oletlnsin by FIA D-1319-93 11.335
64 Benzene in Gasoline by ASTM D 3606 1.0689
46 Aromatics by FIA D-1319-93 21.3
63 Benzene in Gasoline by MSD D5769 1.181
531 Ethanol by MSD (Screen) 0
551 MTBE by MSD (Screen) 13.45
561 ETBE by MSD (Screen) 0
571 TAME by MSD (Screen) 0
69 Specific Gravity @ 60 Degrees F 0.742779
692 Degrees API 59
691 Density @ 60 deg F 0.742049
101 D 86 Initial Boiling Point 100.29
110 10 Percent 140.59
150 50 Percent 206.3
190 90 Percent 311.19
200 End Point 372.39
201 Residue 0.69
202 Total Recovery 98.09
203 Loss 1.19
541 Methanol by MSD (Screen) 0
592 Volume Percent Oxygenates by MSD 13.45
591 Weight Percent Oxygen by MSD 2.24
543 Methanol by OFID 0
585 t-Butanol by OFID 0.05
587 sec-Butanol by OFID 0
588 DIPE by OFID 0
589 Isobutanol by OFID 0.01
5802 n-Butanol by OFID 0.05
593 Volume Percent Oxygenates by OFID 11.39
59 Weight Percent Oxygen by OFID 2.08
32 Weight Fraction Carbon ASTM D 3343-95 0.8613
73 Net Heat of Combustion ASTM D 3338-92 18570
UNITS
Volume Percent
Oxy Percent
Volume Percent
Oxy Percent
Volume Percent
Oxy Percent
Oxy Percent
Volume Percent
Parts Per Million
PSIA
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
60/60F
Degrees API
g/cm3 @ 60 deg F
Degrees F
Degrees F
Degrees F
Degrees F
Degrees F
ml
ml
ml
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Weight Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Weight Percent
Weight Fraction
BTU per Pound
-------
NVFEL Fuel Analysis - H8
FTAG: 7870 Houston test fuel - sample A - RFG2 - 9/4/98
CODE TEST RESULT
552 MTBE by OFID 2.045
55 MTBE by OFID 11.22
562 ETBE by OFID 0
56 ETBE by OFID 0
534 Ethanol by OFID 0
532 Ethanol by OFID 0
572 TAME by OFID 0
57 TAME by OFID 0
421 Sulfur in Gasoline by ASTM D 2622 133
62 Vapor Pressure by Appendix E Method 3 7.059
62 Vapor Pressure by Appendix E Method 3 7.03
65 Percent Evaporated at 200 Degrees F 46.2
66 Percent Evaporated at 300 Degrees F 86.7
48 Aromatics in Gasoline MSD D5769 24.283
49 Olefinsin by FIA D-1319-93 12.042
64 Benzene in Gasoline by ASTM D 3606 0.9939
46 Aromatics by FIA D-1319-93 21.89
63 Benzene in Gasoline by MSD D5769 1.125
531 Ethanol by MSD (Screen) 0
551 MTBE by MSD (Screen) 7.75
561 ETBE by MSD (Screen) 0
571 TAME by MSD (Screen) 0
69 Specific Gravity @ 60 Degrees F 0.74319
692 Degrees API 58.89
691 Density @ 60 deg F 0.74246
101 D86 Initial Boiling Point 104.7
110 10 Percent 143.4
150 50 Percent 207.69
190 90 Percent 311.19
200 End Point 382.5
201 Residue 1.1
202 Total Recovery 98
203 Loss 0.9
592 Volume Percent Oxygenates by MSD 7.75
541 Methanol by MSD (Screen) 0
591 Weight Percent Oxygen by MSD 1.4
543 Methanol by OFID 0.07
585 t-Butanol by OFID • 0.05
588 DIPE by OFID 0
589 Isobutanol by OFID 0.01
5802 n-Butanol by OFID 0.05
593 Volume Percent Oxygenates by OFID 11.35
59 Weight Percent Oxygen by OFID 2.09
227 Gum Content Washed 0.2
228 Gum Content Unwashed 17.6
229 Peroxides 0
UNITS
Oxy Percent
Volume Percent
Oxy Percent
Volume Percent
Oxy Percent
Volume Percent
Oxy Percent
Volume Percent
Parts Per Million
PSIA
PSIA
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
60/60F
Degrees API
g/cm3 @ 60 deg F
degF
Degrees F
Degrees F
Degrees F
Degrees F
Degrees F
ml
ml
ml
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Weight Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Weight Percent
mg/100ml
mg/100ml
Weight Percent
-------
NVFEL Fuel Analysis - H9
FTAG: 7871 Houston control fuel - sample B - commercial RFG1 - 9/4/98
CODE TEST RESULT
552 MTBE by OFID 1.626
55 MTBE by OFID 8.94
56 ETBE by OFID 0
562 ETBE by OFID 0
534 Ethanol by OFID 0
532 Ethanol by OFID 0
572 TAME by OFID 0.082
57 TAME by OFID 0.5
421 Sulfur in Gasoline by ASTM D 2622 165
62 Vapor Pressure by Appendix E Method 3 7.12
62 Vapor Pressure by Appendix E Method 3 7.11
65 Percent Evaporated at 200 Degrees F 51.899
66 Percent Evaporated at 300 Degrees F 80.599
48 Aromatics in Gasoline MSD D5769 24.271
49 Olefinsin by FIA D-1319-93 18.604
64 Benzene in Gasoline by ASTM D 3606 0.4829
46 Aromatics by FIA D-1319-93 23.69
63 Benzene in Gasoline by MSD D5769 0.52
531 Ethanol by MSD (Screen) 0
551 MTBE by MSD (Screen) 6.85
561 ETBE by MSD (Screen) 0
571 TAME by MSD (Screen) . 0.5
69 Specific Gravity @ 60 Degrees F 0.744839
692 Degrees API 58.47
691 Density @ 60 deg F 0.744099
101 D86 Initial Boiling Point 103.4
110 10 Percent 137.69
150 50 Percent 195.69
190 90 Percent 344.39
200 End Point 420.1
201 Residue 0.8
202 Total Recovery 98.09
203 Loss 1.1
592 Volume Percent Oxygenates by MSD 7.62
541 Methanol by MSD (Screen) 0
591 Weight Percent Oxygen by MSD ' 1.4
543 Methanol by OFID 0.06
585 t-Butanol by OFID 0.05
588 DIPE by OFID 0
589 Isobutanol by OFID 0.01
5802 n-Butanol by OFID 0.05
593 Volume Percent Oxygenates by OFID 9.57
59 Weight Percent Oxygen by OFID 1.75
227 Gum Content Washed 0.59
228 Gum Content Unwashed 10
229 Peroxides 0
UNITS
Oxy Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Oxy Percent
Oxy Percent
Volume Percent
Oxy Percent
Volume Percent
Parts Per Million
PSIA
PSIA
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
60/60F
Degrees API
g/cm3 @ 60 deg F
deg F
Degrees F
Degrees F
Degrees F
Degrees F
Degrees F
ml
ml
ml
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Weight Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Weight Percent
mg/100ml
mg/100ml
Weight Percent
-------
NVFEL Fuel Analysis-H10
FTAG: 7872 Houston control fuel - sample C - commercial RFG1 - 9/4/98
CODE TEST RESULT
55 MTBE by OFID 8.96
552 MTBE by OFID 1.631
56 ETBE by OFID 0
562 ETBE by OFID 0
534 Ethanol by OFID 0
532 Ethanol by OFID 0
572 TAME by OFID 0.079
57 TAME by OFID 0.48
421 Sulfur in Gasoline by ASTM D 2622 105
62 Vapor Pressure by Appendix E Method 3 7.08
62 Vapor Pressure by Appendix E Method 3 7.08
65 Percent Evaporated at 200 Degrees F 52.399
66 Percent Evaporated at 300 Degrees F 81.599
48 Aromatics in Gasoline MSD D5769 25.009
49 Olefinsin by FIA D-1319-93 17.828
64 Benzene in Gasoline by ASTM D 3606 0.4769
63 Benzene in Gasoline by MSD D5769 0.519
46 Aromatics by FIA D-1319-93 23.1
531 Ethanol by MSD (Screen) 0
551 MTBE by MSD (Screen) 6.86
561 ETBE by MSD (Screen) 0
571 TAME by MSD (Screen) 0.53
69 Specific Gravity @ 60 Degrees F 0.7449
692 Degrees API 58.45
691 Density @ 60 deg F 0.744169
101 D86 Initial Boiling Point 104.09
110 10 Percent 135.69
150 50 Percent 194.5
190 90 Percent 343.89
200 End Point 415.5
201 Residue 0.8
202 Total Recovery 97.7
203 Loss 1.5
592 Volume Percent Oxygenates by MSD 7.67
541 Methanol by MSD (Screen) 0
591 Weight Percent Oxygen by MSD 1.4
543 Methanol by OFID 0.06
585 t-Butanol by OFID 0.05
586 n-Propanol by OFID 0
588 DIPE by OFID 0
589 Isobutanol by OFID 0.01
5802 n-Butanol by OFID 0.05
593 Volume Percent Oxygenates by OFID 9.57
59 Weight Percent Oxygen by OFID 1.75
226 Acidity as Acetic Acid 0.001
UNITS
Volume Percent
Oxy Percent
Volume Percent
Oxy Percent
Oxy Percent
Volume Percent
Oxy Percent
Volume Percent
Parts Per Million
PSIA
PSIA
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
60/60F
Degrees API
g/cm3 @ 60 deg F
Degrees F
Degrees F
Degrees F
Degrees F
Degrees F
ml
ml
ml
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Weight Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Weight Percent
Weight Percent
-------
Appendix I
-------
Temperatures at Boston/Logan airport: March - August 1998
Date Min Max
Date Min Max
Date Min Max
Date Min Max
Date Min Max
Date Min Max
March
10 38 61
11 21 35
12 17 27
13 10 36
14 28 39
15 29 40
16 27 37
17 27 37
18 32 41
19 32 41
20 35 37
21 30 36
22 28 34
23 30 41
24 34 46
25 30 46
26 36 59
27 46 79
28 55 85
29 55 85
30 46 79
31 64 88
April
1 39 71
2 39 45
3 41 55
4 37 49
5 36 45
6 39 54
7 43 64
8 41 59
9 40 53
10 34 54
11 34 54
12 37 50
13 41 57
14 40 59
15 41 56
16 44 59
17 48 61
18 45 64
19 44 65
20 45 54
21 43 64
22 41 65
23 45 63
24 43 57
25 43 59
26 39 53
27 39 52
28 39 61
29 46 72
30 57 79
May
1 54 72
2 50 66
3 48 58
4 45 54
5 51 63
6 51 59
7 52 59
8 52 57
9 50 55
10 48 55
11 46 54
12 46 53
13 43 49
14 41 52
15 46 66
16 46 68
17 50 66
18 54 82
19 54 83
20 54 77
21 59 81
22 50 70
23 54 75
24 57 81
25 55 77
26 55 80
27 55 79
28 59 85
29 66 90
30 64 86
31 57 80
June
1 57 79
2 53 73
3 52 74
4 48 65
5 52 72
6 52 71
7 55 69
8 53 65
9 52 72
10 57 79
11 54 75
12 54 65
13 57 64
14 55 72
15 61 80
16 55 64
17 55 64
18 59 72
19 59 70
20 59 70
21 59 68
22 57 70
23 62 73
24 68 82
25 70 88
26 70 88
27 64 83
28 57 66
29 60 75
30 60 76
July
1 63 77
2 61 82
3 60 82
4 66 80
5 64 74
6 63 76
7 63 76
8 64 72
9 62 75
10 66 81
11 63 77-
12 62 77
13 63 86
14 70 90
15 70 91
15 70 91
16 70 91
17 73 90
18 72 88
19 63 81
20 70 84
21 72 90
22 73 93
23 71 93
24 71 92
25 63 81
26 63 81
27 64 82
28 64 85
29 73 88
30 68 82
August
1 63 75
2 62 82
3 66 84
4 65 85
5 64 79
6 64 81
7 66 78
8 66 82
9 68 88
10 68 88
11 69 88
12 61 73
13 59 71
14 63 82
15 62 84
16 77 84
17 64 78
18 64 86
19 59 73
20 57 72
21 64 75
22 63. 79
23 64 81
24 70 91
25 69 92
26 70 82
27 71 82
28 64 77
29 64 78
30 64 84
31 65 85
Note: All temperatures in degrees Fahrenheit
-------
Temperatures at Chicago/O'Hare airport: March - August 1998
Date
Min
Max
Date Min
Max
Date Min
Max
Date Min
Max
Date Min
Max
Date Min Max
March
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
13
13
10
19
22
22
24
33
38
34
33
31
26
31
28
42
60
56
49
44
66
45
23
22
26
38
33
32
36
39
52
39
36
43
46
45
52
59
75
77
65
79
79
72
April
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
38
38
37
32
29
33
44
43
41
35
34
55
55
48
44
36
34
39
41
39
47
43
40
49
43
41
37
34
46
50
49
50
45
49
52
62
60
52
45
57
66
73
68
68
61
48
55
60
62
65
53
63
72
75
68
54
52
57
62
59
May
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
52
51
49
48
54
58
55
52
50
48
49
47
56
52
64
62
50
62
66
54
51
53
54
54
51
47
50
60
64
58
57
65
63
56
72
69
77
59
71
65
68
72
79
79
84
86
82
86
90
91
75
77
60
68
67
72
78
83
90
83
87
82
June
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
51
47
48
47
42
43
45
43
58
60
60
64 '•
60
58
61
60
62
64
64
64
69
61
61
' 71
70
70
69
68
67
64
74
78
61
65
58
64
70
69
64
75
76
84
78
76
78
80
84
89
82
91
88
86
87
94
95
87
95
88
86
83
July
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
59
60
69
63
62
68
67
66
64
64
60
57
60
66
70
72
66
66
70
67
76
70
65
62
57
56
64
63
63
65
62
80
86
88
75
78
87
77
81
85
81
81
84
86
90
88
88
84
88
91
91
94
81
81
82
82
83
83
89
86
79
79
August
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
59
63
72
68
71
72
72
70
70
72
64
64
64
61
66
77
66
70
61
61
72
72
70
66
70
64
64
64
66
64
57
84
84
84
80
81
82
78
81
84
88
79
77
81
82
79
82
82
80
79
86
88
84
90
87
84
84
81
77
84
81
81
(Note: All temperatures in degrees Fahrenheit)
-------
Temperatures at Houston Hobby airport: June - September 1998
Date Min Max Date Min Max Date Min Max Date Min Max
June July August September
1 75 99 1 79 97 1 76 101 1 73 92
2 74 97 2 77 94 2 77 100 2 75 94
3 81 93 3 77 86 3 81 100 3 79 97
4 81 95 4 79 93 4 75 99 4 75 93
5 82 94 5 77 95 5 80 99 5 73 93
6 71 87 6 75 97 6 77 95 6 75 88
7 72 88 7 75 96 7 73 86 7 73 89
8 79 92 8 77 95 8 78 96 8 75 88
9 79 93 9 79 97 9 77 99 9 75 90
10 81 95 10 78 99 10 76 98 10 73 81
11 81 95 11 77 99 11 77 98 11 75 86
12 81 97 12 78 99 12 77 97 12 75 82
13 78 100 13 79 97 13 78 99 13 75 87
14 79 100 14 73 99 14 75 86 14 78 90
15 79 100 15 75 99 15 75 90 15 77 82
16 78 98 16 77 100 16 85 90
17 81 93 17 79 102 17 75 93
18 82 95 18 71 96 18 78 89
19 80 97 19 77 95 19 75 94
20 79 97 20 77 95 20 77 94
21 76 99 21 76 94 21 73 86
22 75 96 22 78 95 22 77 82 '
23 77 97 23 77 97 23 77 88
24 77 97 24 77 97 24 77 91
25 77 96 25 78 96 25 78 93
26 79 91 26 76 97 26 78 94
27 79 95 27 80 98 27 76 96
28 73 86 28 77 95 28 78 97
29 75 93 29 77 98 29 78 99
30 79 93 30 77 97 30 79 90
31 75 100 31 75 91
(Note: All temperatures in degrees Fahrenheit)
-------
Appendix J
-------
NOU 02 '98 12=32 FR FUEL ECONOMriGUftLl T r 31- 3SU 03dl *C S2U2565IC&4
Fuel Economy and Quality
Vehicle Environmental Engineering
Tel (313) 594 3179
Fax (313) 390 0382
November 2,1998
To Debbie Wood -U.S EPA
cc Larry Haslett -U.S EPA
Jim Steiger - AAMA
Subject Boston Police Ford Bronco Fuel Pump Failure
Debbie, the Visteon fuel handling department which design and
test fuel pumps for Ford have analyzed the returned pump which
had operated on Federal Phase 2 gasoline. As the attached test
sheet indicates the pump performance is still within our
specification and suitable for use.
Further examination of the pump showed that the fitting which
screws into the pump outlet tube was damaged and is a likely
source of the leak experienced. This in our opinion is a
mechanical failure not attributable to the quality of the fuel
be:Lng used. In summary, Federal Phase 2 gasoline played no part
in this failure.
Regards Gary P Smith
-------
Fl«et Return • 88MY Bronco/ Botch Fuel pump
Part* E7TF-9350-AA
(12 Volt aweep)
6000 T
4500
3 85 Amps 9
/43.3P8I
Pump PctMur« (P81)
iU
,1
10
OJ
CSJ
Ul
ro
u
0>
tl>
CD
ra
•j
§
01
in
ro
m
o
ro
m
h-»
ro
m
o
o
-c
CO
(D
-<
L-J
OD
ro
-------
Fleet Return - 8. .Y Bronco/Bosch Fuel pump
Part* E7TF-9350-AA
(13.2 Volt sweep)
r>
5000
4600
Pump Pr«Mur« (PSI)
•flow
• Amp« ]
Jim Mailed
AVT/PCSD Fuel Delivery
11:51 AM
o.
m
IX)
ni
(V
a>
»—
[VJ
CO
•II
m
m
o
o
t*
O
r
G,
L.I
a.
T'
Ul
i>j
VI
CT'
T
C'
e
-------
Appendix K
-------
General Motors
Public Policy Center
September 3, 1998
FE-6235
Ms. Deborah K. Wood
Assistant Director, Fuels and Energy Division
Office of Mobile Sources
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 K Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Dear Ms. Wood:
Re: Fuel Pump Failures During Federal Phase IIRFG Testing in
Village of Elk Grove, IL, Fleet Vehicles
At the request of your office, General Motors fuel systems personnel examined three fuel
pumps that failed during the Federal Phase II RFG test program. The three fuel pumps
were from General Motors vehicles operated by the Village of Elk Grove, EL, and were
shipped to us from that test fleet.
Two of the pumps were General Motors Delphi rollervane pumps. We were informed
that these two pumps were from Chevrolet Caprice police vehicles, a 1995 model with
85,000 miles and a 1996 model with 56,000 miles at the time of failure. It is not known
if these pumps were the original production pumps supplied when the vehicle was
assembled, but these mileages would indicate that they probably are.
Both rollervane pumps failed because of severe corrosion of the positive brush shunt
wire. In both pumps the wire had corroded away entirely leaving the brush spring to carry
the pump current, causing the spring to fail eventually because of overheating. The first
pump received, from the 1995 vehicle, also displayed severe wear of the copper
commutator. The commutator on the other pump was also worn abnormally but not as
severely.
The severe positive shunt wire corrosion in the two pumps is typical of previously
observed field results during longer-term exposure to gasoline containing reactive sulfur
compounds (most often a sulfide, but not exclusively). These compounds corrode copper
and, if present, would not allow the gasoline in question to meet ASTM standards for
copper strip corrosion. The black deposits on the commutators of both pumps also can
be attributed to copper corrosion by reactive sulfur compounds but this was not verified
by analysis. The commutator wear was probably also caused by copper corrosion; high
levels of peroxides in fuel also can cause the same type of commutator wear, but do not
usually cause shunt wire failure. Our conclusion is that a high level of corrosion probably
General Motors Corporation General Motors Building 3044 West Grand Boulevard Detroit, Michigan 4820:
Mail Code 482-112-2)7 Facsimile H (313) 556-9002 Phone # (313) 556-772:
-------
General Motors
Public Policy Center
was present in both of these rollervane pumps at the start of the Phase n RFG testing, and
the failures are coincidental to the use of reformulated gasoline.
The third pump was a large capacity diaphragm pump used on carbureted fuel systems,
which was removed from a 1981 Chevrolet Step Van at 66,000 miles. The diaphragm
pump has the markings E L5 and 40987 but is of unknown manufacture, and is not the
original equipment component, in our estimation. This pump showed no obvious signs
of failure except for an oil leak and possibly an extruded seal. The oil leak was not
caused as a result of fuel composition. The extruded seal could be the result of excessive
swell; which may be caused by the presence of oxygenates or by excessively high
aromatic content or a combination. The apparent extrusion could also be due to an
assembly problem. If the seal in question were not sealing properly, it would cause
internal fuel leakage and siphoning of the fuel back to the fuel tank. In the most extreme
case, the pump would have either reduced or no delivery capacity. If the seal extruded
because of excessive swell, this could have occurred in the short duration of the Phase n
RFG testing. However, it seems more likely that the failures of both the rollervane and
the diaphragm pumps was coincidental to the Phase n RFG use and not related to the use
of Phase H RFG.
If I can provide further information, please don't hesitate to call me at (313) 556-7723.
Sincerely,
Gerald J. Barnes, Manager
Clean Fuels Activities
General Motors Corporation General Motors Building 3044 West Grand Boulevard Detroit, Michigan 482
Mail Code 482-112-2)7 Facsimile * (313) H6-9002 Phone ft (313) V6-7\
-------
General Motors
Public Policy Center
September 23, 1998
FE-6239
Ms. Deborah K. Wood
Assistant Director, Fuels and Energy Division
Office of Mobile Sources
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 K Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Dear Ms. Wood:
Re: Fuel Pump Failures During Federal Phase II RFG Testing in
Houston, TX Fleet Vehicles
General Motors fuel systems personnel examined four fuel pumps that failed during the
EPA Federal Phase H RFG test program in Houston, TX. All four fuel pumps were of in-
tank twin turbine design from 1993 Chevrolet S10 pickups; these vehicles operated on
both Phase n RFG test fuel and on the control fuel in the Houston test program, as shown
below.
Vehicle # Mileage Fuel
1047 82,553 . Phase 0 RFG
1051 72,771 ' Control
1113 81,998 Control
1249 86,589 / Control
Upon receipt, all pumps were checked for free rotation and electrical conductivity before
disassembly. No indication of binding was seen in any of the four pumps. However,
resistance across the power leads was high for all four samples. This is consistent with
the high wear observed on the pump motor commutator upon disassembly. The brushes
showed normal wear, however. In addition, the aluminum housing of the pump was
covered with fuel gum deposits, imparting a gold color to the pump housing.
The heavy commutator wear coupled with normal brush wear suggest that all four pumps
failed due to operation on peroxidized (sour) fuel. The gum deposits on the pump
housing are also consistent with this conclusion. This type of failure usually occurs quite
quickly, depending on the level the peroxides reach in the fuel in use. Since the failures
occurred in both the Phase n RFG and the control fuels, they seem more likely related
either to the fuel dispensing system or to vehicle operating factors leading to oxidation of
the fuel, rather than to the base composition of either fuel.
General Motors Corporation General Motors Building 3044 West Grand Boulevard Detroit, Michigan 482
Mail Code 482-112-257 Facsimile # (313) 556-9002 Phone It (313) 556-7/
-------
General Motors
Public Policy Center
Peroxidized fuel can result from a number of factors, including poor oxidation stability of
the base fuel, long fuel storage time, high storage temperatures, contact with air (such as
in a partially filled vehicle or storage fuel tank), or a combination of these factors.
Peroxides form by a free radical chain reaction and tend to increase in concentration once
present in fuel storage tanks if the right reaction conditions continue to exist. This could
lead to a "carry-over" effect in fuel storage systems, if the conditions for peroxide
formation continue to exist, even with uncontaminated batches of new fuel. Contact with
copper catalyzes the oxidation reaction, and the peroxides produced are very corrosive to
copper such as the pump commutator in the failed pumps.
As we discussed with Mr. Haslett, we would suggest that the fleet operator check the
current batches of Phase JQ RFG and control fuels for peroxide, washed gum and acid
levels. Levels of peroxides (above 50 ppm by ASTM D 3703) would be of concern, as
would washed gum levels above 10 mg/100 ml (ASTM D 381). High acid levels (above
about 10 ppm by ASTM D1613) indicate the fuel has probably oxidized even if peroxide
levels are relatively low. If high peroxide levels are found in the fuels used in the
Houston fleet, it probably is advisable to dispose of the fuel and take steps to reduce the
factors that lead to fuel oxidation. The operator may want to consider use of an oxidation
inhibitor such as Sta-bil, particularly during the higher temperature summer months.
If I can provide further information, please don'f hesitate to call me at (313) 556-7723.
Sincerely,
Gerald J. Barnes, Nfafiager
Clean Fuels Activities
c: Lawrence Haslett, EPA
General Motors Corporation General Motors Building 3044 West Grand Boulevard Detroit, Michigan 48202.
Mail Code 482-112-2)7 Facsimile #(313) 556-9002 Phone # (313) 556-77U
}
-------
Appendix L
-------
February 22,1999
Deborah K. Wood, Acting Director
Fuels and Energy Division
USEPA (6406)
Washington, DC 20460
Fx: 202-565-2084
Ms. Wood,
During our testing of phase n reformulated gasoline, we experienced four
(4) fuel pump failures. Because the test period covered five to six months, I
don't consider this number of failures to be out of the ordinary for a fleet of our
size. While I do not have detailed records on the historical rate of fuel pump
replacements In the Elk Grove Village fleet, it is my opinion, based on my
experience, that the number of failures we expected during this program was
normal. It is customary to replace fuel pumps on vehicles that have
accumulated more than 60,000 miles. While this is not a planned event in the
life of any vehicle, experience has shown that it can be expected. Generally, we
are not concerned about fuel pump failures that occur after 60,000 miles.
As I have stated previously, the testing of the phase II RFC was basically
transparent to our users. Even the mechanical staff saw no change or affect.
I hope these comments will assist you in your endeavor to conclude your report
on the testing program. Should you require any further information, data or
comments please do not hesitate to call me.
It has truly been a pleasure working with you and the rest of the EPA staff.
Thanks again for the opportunity to assist the EPA In this program. If there is an
opportunity to particlpate'iri any other future testing please keep us In mind.
Respectfully,
Jack Gray
Superintendent of Building &
Village of Elk Grove Village
1635 Biesterfield Road
Elk Grove Village, IL 60007
847-734-8080
896823E/J78 'ON m 3AOiKm3 - AWO m Ifr:21 NOW 66-22-83J
-------
Appendix M
-------
SOUTHWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Post Office Drawer 28510, 6220 Culebra Road
San Antonio, Texas 78238
AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS AND EMISSIONS RESEARCH DIVISION
ON-ROAD STUDY OF THE EFFECTS
OF PHASE II REFORMULATED GASOLINE
ON FUEL ECONOMY
Prepared by
Randell Hone
FINAL REPORT
SwRI Project No. 08-7601-025
Prepared for
Environmental Protection Agency
July 1998
Approved:
Kevin Brunner
Manager
Fuel Technology & Product
Development Section
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION 2
II. BACKGROUND 2
III. TEST PROCEDURES 3
A. Vehicle Selection 3
B. Vehicle Preparation 3
C. Fuel 4
D. Test Routes and Mileage Accumulation 4
IV. RESULTS 6
V. CONCLUSIONS 7
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Southwest Research Institute (SwRI) conducted an on-road study of the fuel economy
effects of Phase II reformulated gasoline (Phase II RFG) compared to Phase I
reformulated gasoline (Phase I RFG). Fuel economy was measured for a group of
vehicles of various makes, ages, mileage, and fuel delivery systems. Twelve vehicles
were driven over fixed 50-mile urban and suburban routes. Fuel usage was determined by
measuring the total volume of fuel consumed during the 50-mile route using a flow meter
to precisely measure volume and temperature. The results in this study do not indicate
any statistically significant fuel economy difference between the fuels.
The outcome of this study is consistent with other fuel economy studies. Fuel economy is
generally proportional to the energy content of the fuel1. During the past few years,
studies of the fuel economy effects of reformulated, gasolines with oxygenates123,
including laboratory and on-road studies, have shown that the addition of two percent
oxygen by weight to gasoline results in a one to three percent fuel economy loss3. In this
study, both gasolines have essentially the same oxygen content and the same energy
content. Since the energy content difference between Phase I RFG and Phase II RFG is
expected to be minimal, no impact on the fuel economy measured in this study was
expected.
This study was designed to minimize the effects of the fuel economy variables that are
normally present in every day driving. The key variables include differences in personal
driving habits, weather (temperature, wind effects, and precipitation), traffic patterns (e.g.
rush hour versus weekend, and highway versus city driving), number of passengers,
vehicle condition, and changes in tire pressure. The relative effect of many of these
variables can be expected to exceed any reduction due to using reformulated gasoline45.
Page 1 of 7
-------
INTRODUCTION
Southwest Research Institute (SwRI) conducted this test program to obtain on-road fuel
economy measurements that compare summer-grade Phase II reformulated gasoline
(Phase II RFG) with summer-grade Phase I reformulated gasoline (Phase I RFG) at the
request of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Phase II RFG properties are
representative of the fuel that will be sold beginning in the year 2000. The Phase I RFG
was a commercially available summer-grade gasoline obtained in the Houston area. Both
fuels used MTBE as the oxygenate, and the oxygen levels were equivalent.
BACKGROUND
The Fuels and Energy Division (FED) within the Office of Mobile Sources (OMS) is
responsible for developing, implementing, and assuring compliance with national
programs that reduce air pollution from highway and nonroad sources through fuel and
fuel-related emission controls. FED develops regulations, policies, guidance, studies, and
reports to Congress. FED provides fuel-related support to other divisions within OMS
and to other EPA offices, federal and state organizations, and external groups. FED is
responsible for identifying environmental benefits, costs, and other effects (e.g. U.S.
trade balance impacts, energy security impacts, fuel safety, vehicle compatibility, full life
cycle emissions) associated with fuels. FED performs these assessments for petroleum-
based fuels as well as for alternative fuels. FED reviews applications for fuel waiver
requests, collaborates with state and regional offices on oxygenated fuel responsibilities,
and oversees the registration program. The coordination of energy policy for OMS is
also a function of the division.
One of the requirements of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments that FED implements is
the reformulated gasoline (RFG) program. The purpose of the RFG program is to
improve air quality by requiring that gasoline sold in certain areas of the country be
reformulated to reduce emissions of toxics and tropospheric ozone-forming volatile
organic compounds (VOCs), as specified by section 211(k). Section 211(k) mandates
that RFG must be sold in any ozone nonattainment area classified as severe, and in other
ozone nonattainment areas that choose to participate or "opt in" to the program. The
RFG program was implemented in two phases. Phase I RFG was required to be used in
the specified RFG areas beginning in January 1995. It will be replaced by Phase II RFG
in January 2000. Phase II RFG is formulated to achieve even greater reductions in
VOCs, oxides of nitrogen (NOx), and toxics than Phase I.
Paae2of7
-------
TEST PROCEDURES
The objective of the study was to provide on-road fuel economy measurements that
compare summer-grade Phase II RFG with summer-grade Phase I RFG. The Society of
Automotive Engineers (SAE) standard, Fuel Economy Measurement Test Procedure -
SAE J1082, is essentially designed to provide the type of measurements desired. That
standard was used as a guide for this study. Certain parameters, such as maximum
ambient temperature and test repeatability limits, various vehicle inspection and
operating ranges, were not followed because of resource limitations and because they
were expected to have a minimal impact on the outcome of this study. The number of
vehicles, tests, and variables in this study indicated that the focus of the analysis should
be on comparing fleet fuel economies, determined from total fuel consumption of all the
vehicles, rather than comparing the fuel economies on individual vehicles. There is
insufficient information for robust vehicle-by-vehicle comparisons. The statistical
treatment of the data has focused on detecting fleet effects.
A. Vehicle Selection
The test program was conducted on twelve (12) in-use vehicles distributed, subject to
availability, to cover the span of model years from 1989 through 1997. Eight of the
vehicles were passenger cars, both domestic and imported, compact to full-size, and
including four, six, and eight cylinder engines. The remaining four (4) vehicles were
utility vehicles, three domestic and one imported model. They included a minivan, a sport
utility vehicle, and two light-duty trucks. The engines included four, six, and eight
cylinder models. The range of fuel delivery systems, carburetted, throttle-body injected
(TBI), and port-fuel injected (PFI) were represented. There were two throttle-body
injection, nine port-fuel injection, and one carburetted vehicle. A description of the test
vehicles is presented in Appendix A.
Prior to testing, each vehicle was inspected and repaired or adjusted to ensure that the
vehicle was in proper running order. The inspections included items specified by the
vehicle preparation form in SAE Procedure J1082 "Fuel Economy Measurement Road
Test Procedure". Vehicles that failed this inspection were excluded from testing. The
maximum tread wear limitation and minimum engine oil age could not be verified in
most cases but were checked; the vehicle was excluded if they were deemed
inappropriate. A copy of the vehicle inspection form is presented in Appendix B.
B. Vehicle Preparation
Upon successful completion of the inspection, the vehicle was equipped with auxiliary
fuel supply lines with quick-disconnects to allow for installation of a Max 710 Fuel
Measurement System just prior to testing. The Max 710 Fuel Measurement System uses a
positive displacement flow meter capable of measuring fuel consumption with ± 0.5%
accuracy and 0.1% repeatability.
Page 3 of 7
-------
Bubble Tank
A bubble tank removed vapor bubbles to stabilize volumetric delivery to the flowmeter
that increased measurement accuracy. Since fuel volume increases slightly as temperature
rises, . fuel temperature was
monitored just prior to measurement
by the flowmeter. Fuel consumption
was later corrected for changes in
density for the given temperatures.
A recovery tank collected the return
fuel from the engine so the
flowmeter only measured make-up
fuel as it replaced the fuel consumed
by the engine.
Max710Ftowmeter
Recovery Tank
Fig. 1 Max 710 Fuel Measunmtni System
The vehicle fuel tank was flushed
and filled with the test fuel. The
vehicle was preconditioned to allow
those vehicles with adaptive learn
capability to adjust to the test fuel.
The preconditioning procedure outlined in CRC Designation E-15-97 "Technique for
Determination of Octane Number Requirements of Light-Duty Vehicles" was performed
using a Clayton Chassis Dynamometer. The vehicle was driven over the first 505 seconds
of the Federal Test Procedure (FTP) emissions test cycle three times in order to achieve a
ten-mile warm-up. The preconditioning was initiated with the ignition key turned to the
off position for five seconds and returned to the off position for five seconds upon
completion of each 505-second cycle. Each vehicle was preconditioned regardless of
technology to minimize test variability.
C. Fuel
The test fuel used for this program was Phase II RFG/.(SwRI Code GA-3524). The test
fuel was obtained from Phillips Chemical Company and was designated as Oxygenated
Test Fuel (MF 6500 Lot D-517). The test fuel was used in EPA's RFG II fleet test
program conducted in Boston, Chicago and Houston. The control fuel was Phase I RFG
(SwRI Code GA-3520). The control fuel was obtained from a retail outlet in the Houston
area. The fuels were dispensed from drums to the vehicles with a portable pump during
the test. Analyses of both fuel properties are presented in Table 2 of Appendix C.
D. Test Routes and Mileage Accumulation
The fuel economy measurements were conducted over fixed road routes that approximate
urban and suburban driving patterns. The urban driving cycle is 50 miles of low to
moderate speeds with frequent stops. The suburban driving cycle is 50 miles of mostly
moderate speeds with infrequent stops. The urban and suburban driving cycles were
established using an instrumented vehicle with a calibrated speedometer.
Page 4 of 7
-------
Fig. 2 Urban Driving Cycle Histogram
50.0%
40.0%
20 30
Speed (mph)
40
50
Fig. 3 Suburban Driving Cycle Histogram
Histograms of the urban and
suburban driving cycle
speeds are presented in
Figures 2 and 3. Typical
driving cycles are presented
in Appendix D.
Each vehicle was operated
for 15 miles just prior to
testing to bring the vehicle to
operating temperature.
Duplicate urban and
suburban cycles were driven
using each fuel. Driver
variability was kept to a
minimum by using the same
driver for all testing. The
vehicle air conditioner was
operated at all times during
testing since this is typical of
summer driving. The air
conditioner was turned on in
the normakmode, set to a
comfortable level, with low
fan. Before the start of each
driving cycle, the fuel
volume meter was reset to
zero and the fuel
temperature recorded with 's
the engine running. Upon
completion of each driving
cycle, the fuel volume
(totalized) and temperature were recorded.
The vehicles were driven over the 50-mile urban arjd the 50-mile suburban road route
once in the morning and again in the afternoon. Upon completion of each driving cycle,
the fuel volume and temperature were recorded. To compensate for temperature effects,
the fuel volume for each test was corrected to the standard reference conditions of 15.6
°C (60 °F).
20 30
Speed (mph)
40
50
Pa2e5of7
-------
RESULTS
The individual vehicle fuel economy and consumption data, corrected for fuel
temperature, are given in Appendix E. Duplicate tests, two urban cycles and two
suburban cycles were run using Phase I RFG, the control fuel; the sequence was repeated
using Phase II RFG, the test fuel. The fuel consumed by each individual vehicle was
added, within fuel types, to provide overall fuel economy numbers for the entire fleet.
The fleet-wide fuel consumption data over both urban and suburban test cycles is shown
in Appendix F.
Eleven of the twelve vehicles in the test program completed the test schedule, four tests
on each of the two fuels. The twelfth vehicle, vehicle L, experienced mechanical
problems (clutch failure) during testing and did not complete the eight tests. Five tests
for vehicle L are shown in the individual vehicle fuel economy and consumption data
tables in Appendix E. The fleet-wide fuel consumption was computed using the values
from the first run of the urban and suburban driving cycles. The second run of the urban
and suburban driving cycle for vehicle L was not included in the fleet average.
Table 6. Fleet Fuel Economy Results
Total Fuel Consumed (Liters)
Total Distance Driven (km)
Fleet Fuel Economy (km/L)
Fleet Fuel Economy (mpg)
Difference (RFG II - RFG I) (km/L)
Difference (RFG II - RFG I) (mpg)
RFG I
401.02
3700.70
9.23
21.71
RFG II
407.46
3700.70
9.08
21.36
-0.146
-0.343
The difference in fleet fuel economies is the experimental result. In order to determine
how closely it represents the true difference in fuel economies, a nonparametric statistical
test6 was used to determine whether the difference is likely to be real or the result of
measurement variability.
To test the assumption of no difference in fleet fuel economies, the difference in
individual fuel consumption rates (liters per kilometer) were compared in Appendix G,
thereby weighting the individual differences in proportion to their overall fuel
consumption. These consumption rates were then tested against the null hypothesis of no
difference in fleet fuel economies. The hypothesis was not rejected therefore no
difference in fleet fuel economy between Phase I RFG and Phase II RFG is indicated.
Page 6 of 7
-------
CONCLUSION
The results of this study show no significant change in fleet fuel economy when
switching from Phase I RFC to Phase II RFG. The small difference in the fleet fuel
economy cannot be attributed to the change in fuel. It may be due to variability that is
inherent in the test method. Sources of such test-to-test variability that could not be
entirely controlled in this experiment include differences in driver inputs, traffic patterns,
and weather effects.
The experimental results produced a very small, statistically insignificant, difference
between the fleet fuel economies. The statistical test used to determine significance also
indicated that the difference between the fleet fuel economies would have to be almost
twice as large to be significant.
The finding that there was no difference in fuel economy was not unexpected. Fuel
economy correlates with the fuel property of heat of combustion1. As indicated on Table
2, the heat of combustion for the test and control fuels were essentially identical.
Page 7 of 7
-------
Table 1 . Vehicle Descriptions
Year
1997
1996
1995
1994
1994
1993
1993
1992
1991
1990
1990
1989
Type
Sedan
Sedan
Sedan
SUV
Truck
Sedan
Van
Sedan
Sedan
Sedan
Sedan
Truck
Make
Plymouth
Chevrolet
Mazda
Ford
Chevrolet
Ford
Plymouth
Audi
Chevrolet
Ford
Toyota
Vfazda
Model
Neon
Lumina
626
Explorer
Silverado
Taurus
Voyager
100s
Caprice
Probe
Corolla
B2200
Engine
4 cyl, 2.0 L
6cyl, 3.1 L
4 cyl, 2.0 L
6 cyl, 4.0 L
8 cyl, 5.7 L
6 cyl, 3.0 L
6 cyl, 3.0 L
6 cyl, 2.8 L
8 cyl, 5.0 L
4 cyl, 2.2 L
4 cyl, 1.6L
4 cyl, 2.2 L
Fuel
System
PFI
PFI
PFI
PFI
TBI
PFI
PFI
PFI
TBI
PFI
PFI
carb
Mileage
28,903
115,566
85,940
46,978
87,232
59,738
91,265
65,081
113,413
87,571
140,838
166,993
4 I nf I
-------
Year:
EPA FUEL ECONOMY VEHICLE INSPECTION
Make/Model:
VIN :
Mileage :
Optional Power Consuming Equip :
Tire Make/ Size :
Transmission :
Engine/Disp/Fuel:
Tires have over 100 miles ? YES / NO
Front Brakes ? DISK / DRUM
Rear Brakes? DISK/DRUM
Brake drag not excessive ? YES / NO
Brake drag not excessive ? YES / NO
CHECK LIST
Engine Oil Level OK
"Coolant Level OK
Transmission Fluid Level OK
" Fuel System OK
"Belts and Hoses TIGHT
"Throttle Operation FUNCTIONAL
Engine Operation OK
Transmission Operation OK
"Tire Wear EVEN
"Air Cleaner CLEAN
' Fan Clutch FUNCTIONAL
' Air Conditioning FUNCTIONAL
Leaks ? YES / NO
Leaks ? YES / NO
Leaks ? YES / NO
Leaks ? YES / NO
Diagnostic Codes :
Note Scratches/Dents/Hubcaps.
Comments :
Name :
Date
Bl of!
-------
APPENDIX C
FUEL ANALYSIS
-------
Table 2. Fuel Analysis Summary
Test
ASTM D86 - Distillation Temperature (°F)
ASTMD4052 - Density @ 15.5 °C (60 °F)
ASTMD519T- RVP by Grabner
ASTMD323 - Reid Vapor Pressure
ASTMD2622 -Sulfur by X-Ray Florescence
ASTM Dl 3 19 - Hydrocarbon Composition
" 'A
ASTM D2699 - Research Octane Number ,
ASTM D2 700 - Motor Octane Number
7
/
ASTMD48I5 - Oxygenates
>
ASTM D240 - Heat of Combustion
(
IBP
5%
10%
15%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
95%
EP/FBP
Recovery (vol%)
Residue (vol%)
Loss (vol%)
E-200 (vol%)
E-300 (vol%)
API
Specific Gravity
(psi)
(psi)
(wt%)
Aromatics (vol%)
Olefms (vol%)
Saturates (vol%)
Benzene (vol%)
Research
Motor
(R+M)/2
Sensitivity (R-M)
MTBE (vol%)
Oxygen (wt%)
Gross (Btu/lb)
Net (Btu/lb)
Phase I RFC
(GA-3520)***
103.0
124.0
135.0
142.0
149.0
165.0
185.0
213.0
245.0
271.0
296.0
328.0
353.0
393.0
97.5
0.5
2.0
45.7
81.5
57.0
0.7505
6.89
0.032
31.5
13.0
55.5
1.22
92.9
- 83.1
88.0
9.8
10.76
2.00
19,417.2
18,199.3
Phase II RFC
(GA-3524)*
105.0
129.2
139.7
154.6
169.4
186.1
205.7
228.7
252.1
279.5
312.5
343.2
388.7
0.9
1.4
59.4
0.7414
6.8
0.016
24.5
12.0
1.0
96.2
85.7
91.0
10.5
11.2
2.04**
19473.4***
18236.3***
* Phillips analysis - Lot D517
**02wt% = (0.112x0.l82)xlOO
*** Southwest Research analysis
Cl of 1
-------
APPENDIX D
URBAN AND SUBURBAN TEST ROUTES
-------
Figure 4 Typical Urban Driving Cycle
1001
2001
3001
Time (sec)
4001
5001
6001
-------
Figure 5 Typical Suburban Driving Cycle
o^
ro
1001
2001
Time (sec)
3001
4001
-------
APPENDIX E
INDIVIDUAL VEHICLE FUEL ECONOMY DATA
-------
Table 3. Fuel Economy Results for the Urban Driving Cycle
Vehicle
A
B
r
F
p
1
J
K
L*
Fuel
RFC I
RFGII
RFGI
RFC IF
RFGI
RFGII
RFGI
RFGII
RFGI
RFGII
RFGI
RFGII
RFGI
RFGII
RFGI
RFGII
RFGI
RFGII
RFGI
RFGII
RFGI
RFGII
RFGI
RFGI
Date
08-Jun-98
09-Jun-98
IO-Jun-98
ll-Jun-98
1 2-Jun-98
1 3-Jun-98
1 5-Jun-98
!6-Jun-98
1 7- Jun-98
l8-Jun-98
1 9-Jun-98
20- Jun-98
22-Jun-98
91. Inn OR
•JA hin QR
->< Inn OS
*)f. !,,_ QO
27-Jun-98
29-Jun-98
30-Jun-98
02-Jul-98
03-Jul-98
08-Jul-98
09-Jul-98
Time
8:00
12:00
8:00
12:00
8:00
12:00
11:00
16:00
8:00
12:00
8:00
12:00
12:00
16:00
8:00
12:00
9:00
13:00
10:00
14:00
8:00
12:00
8:00
12:00
9:00
13:00
8:00
12:00
11:00
15:00
8:00
12:00
8:00
12:00
8:00
12:00
9:00
13:00
8:00
12:00
10:00
14:00
8:00
12:00
11:00
#N/A
8:00
12:0
Fuel
Consumed
cm3
14,074
13,597
13,491
13,473
11,197
11,023
10,928
11,119
7,058
6,845
7,443
7,513
10,000
10,397
10,601
11,340
10,941
11,293
12,055
11,812
9,080
9,491
8,842
9,345
10,839
10,808
10,571
10,826
8,026
7,994
7,936
8,162
8,636
8,726
8,731
9,598
8,965
9,065
8,529
8,263
11,539
11,745
11,957
11,946
8,823
#N/A
9,10
9,25
Observed
Fuel
Economy
km/L
5.72
5.92
5.96
5.97
7.18
7.30
7.36
7.24
11.40
11.75
10.81
10.71
8.05
7.74
7.59
7.09
7.35
7.12
6.67
6.81
8.86
8.48
9.10
8.61
7.42
7.44
7.61
7.43
10.02
10.06
10.14
9.86
9.32
9.22
9.21
8.38 c
8.97
8.87
9.43
9.74
6.97
$85
'6.73
6.73
9.12
#N/A
8.83
8.69
Average
Fuel Temp.
°C
28.3
38.6
29.4
36.9
32.8
40.6
31.4
42.2
33.3
42.5
33.1
44.2
39.2
51.1
30.8
43.1
29.7
40.3
34.2
43.6
33.9
45.8
33.3
46.9
34.2
45.3
30.8
42.5
41.1
47.8
31.7
44.4
35.8
53.3
35.3
53.9
34.2
45.8
34.2
47.2
35.8
45.0
31.4
39.7
33.9
#N/A
28.1
40.3
Corrected
Fuel
Economy
km/L
5.80
6.07
6.06
6.11
7.32
7.50
7.49
7.45
11.62
12.11
11.02
11.06
8.26
8.05
7.72
7.31
7.47
7.32
6.81
7.03
9.04
8.77
9.28
8.92
7.58
7.69 r
7.74
7.66
10.31
10.43
10.32
10.18
9.53
9.62
9.42
8.75
9.16
9.18
9.63
10.09
7.13
7.08
6.85
6.92
9.31
#N/A
8.96
8.93
Corrected Fuel
Consumed
Liters
13.88
13.25
13.29
13.16
10.99
10.72
10.74
10.79
6.92
6.64
7.30
7.28
9.74
9.99
10.42
11.00
10.77
10.99
11.81
11.45
8.90
9.18
8.67
9.02 ^
10.62
10.46
10.39
10.51
7.80
7.71
7.80
7.90
8.44
8.36
8.54
9.19
8.78
8.76
8.36
7.98
11.28
11.37
11.75
11.63
8.65
#N/A
8.98
9.01
(gallons)
(3.67)
(3.50)
(3.51)
(3.48)
(2.90)
(2.83)
(2.84)
(2.85)
(1.83)
(1.76)
(1.93)
(1.92)
(2.57)
(2.64)
(2.75)
(2.91)
(2.85)
(2.90)
(3-12)
(3.03)
(2.35)
(2.42)
(2-29)
(2.38) •>
(2.81)
(2.76)
(2.75)
(2.78)
(2.06)
(2.04)
(2.06)
(2.09)
(2.23)
(2.21)
(2.26)
(2.43)
(2.32)~
(2.32)
(2.21)
(2.11)
(2.98)
(3.00)
(3.10)
(3.07)
(2.28)
#N/A
(2.37)
(2.38)
* Vehicle L experienced mechanical problems on the last suburban driving cycle using Phase II RFG. In addition,
there was only enough Phase I RFG to perform one urban and one suburban driving cycle.
El of2
-------
Table 4. Fuel Economy Results for the Suburban Driving Cycle
Vehicle
A
B
C
i
J
K
L*
Fuel
RFC I
RFC II
RFGI
RFC II
RFGI
RFC II
RFGI
RFGH
RFGI
RFGII
RFGI
^FGII
RFGI
RFGII
RFGI
RFGII
RFGI
RFGII
RFGI
RFGII
RFGI
RFGII
RFGI
RFGII
Date
08-Jun-98
09-Jun-98
10-Jun-98
ll-Jun-98
!2-Jun-98
!3-Jun-98
l5-Jun-98
1A Inn Oft
n. hin. 08
1ft Inn. OS
19-Jun-98
">ft Inn Oft
?"> Inn Oft
T-) [lin QQ
24-Jun-98
IS-Ilin-QR
?6-Jnn-98
97-Jun-98
29-Jun-98
TO- Inn Oft
02-Jul-98
03-Jul-98
08-Jul-98
09-Jul-98
Time
10:00
14:00
10:00
14:00
10:00
14:00
13:00
18:00
10:00
14:00
10:00
14:00
14:00
18:00
10:00
14:00
11:00
15:00
12:00
16:00
10:00
14:00
10:00
14:00
11:00
15:00
10:00
, 14:00
13:00
17.00
10:00
14.00
10:00
16:00
10:00
14:00
11:00
17:00
10:00
14:00
13:00
17:00
10:00
14:00
13:00
#N/A
10:00
#N/A
Fuel
Consumed
cm5
11,108
11,578
10,702
11,069
8,159
8,414
8,234
8,018
5,807
5,660
6,393
6,360
8,717
9,068
8,992
8,930
9,725
10,133
10,023
10,207
6,656
7,032
6,574
7,084
6,783
7,632
7,581
7,670
6,409
6,565
6,337
, 6,640
6,653
6,832
' 6,667
7,082
«,786
6,132
6,547
6,558
9,542
9,525
9,709
9,826
7,499
#N/A
7,771
#N/A
Observed
Fuel
Economy
km/L
7.24
6.95
7.52
7.27
9.86
9.56
9.77
10.03
13.85
14.21
12.58
12.65
9.23
8.87
8.95
9.01
8.27
7.94
8.03
7.88
12.09
11.44
12.24
11.36
11.86
10.54
10.61
10.49
12.55
12.25
12.70
12.12
12.09
11.78
12.07
11.36
11.86
13.12
12.29
12.27
8.43
8.45
8.29
8.19
10.73
#N/A
10.35
#N/A
Average
Fuel Temp
°C
32.8
43.1
32.8
41.4
36.9
44.7
37.5
42.2
38.9
422
39.7
47.5
46.7
50.0
37.2
46.7
35.6
43.6
41.9
46.4
40.0
50.6
40.8
51.7
40.3
47.8
37.2
45.8
45.6
48.9
39.4
48.6
47.2
57.5
46.4
5,9.4
42.2
38.9
41.7
52.2
42.5
46.4
36.9
40.3
43.9
#N/A
34.4
#N/A
Corrected
Fuel
Economy
km/L
7.38
7.16
7.66
7.48
10.10
9.88
10.01
10.34
14.22
14.64
12.93
13.11
9.56
9.22
9.16
9.33
8.46
8.19
8.27
8.16
12.42
11.90
12.59
11.83
12.19
10.93
10.87
10.85
12.98
12.72
13.04
12.57
12.53
12.34
12.49
11.94
12.21
13.46
12.65
12.78
8.69
8.74
8.48
8.42
11.07
#N/A
10.57
#N/A
Corrected Fuel
Consumed
Liters
10.90
11.23
10.50
10.76
7.97
8.14
8.04
7.78
5.66
5.49
6.22
6.14
8.42
8.73
8.78
8.63
9.51
9.82
9.73
9.86
6.48
6.76
6.39
6.80
6.60
7.36
7.40
7.42
6.20
6.32
6.17
6.40
6.42
6.52
6.44
6.74
6.59
5.98
6.36
6.29
9.26
9.20
9.48
9.56
7.27
#N/A
7.61
#N/A
(gallons)
(2.88)
(2.97)
(2.77)
(2.84)
(2.11)
(2.15)
(2.12)
(2.06)
(1.50)
(1.45)
(1.64)
(1.62)
(2.22)
(2.31)
(2.32)
(2.28)
(2.51)
(2.60)
(2.57)
(2.61)
(1.71)
(1.79)
(1.69)
(1.80)
(1.74)
(1.95)
(1-96)
(1.96)
(1.64)
(1.67)
(1.63)
(1.69)
(1.70)
(1.72)
(1.70)
(1.78)
(1.74)
(1.58)
(1.68)
(1.66)
(2.45)
(2.43)
(2.51)
(2.53)
(1.92)
#N/A
(2.01)
#N/A'
* Vehicle L experienced mechanical problems on the last suburban driving cycle using Phase IF .RFC. In addition,
there was only enough Phase I RFG to perform one urban and one suburban driving cycle. !
E2of2
-------
APPENDIX F
FLEET FUEL CONSUMPTION DATA
-------
Table 5. Corrected Fuel Consumed (Liters)
Vehicle
A
B
C
D
E
F
c.
u
i
i
i *
Fuel
RFC I
RFC II
RFGI
RFC II
RFGI
RFGU
RFGI
RFC II
RFGI
RFGII
RFGI
RFGU
RFGI
RFGII
RFGI
RFGII
RFGI
RFGII
RFGI
RFGII
RFGI
RFGII
RFGI
RFGII
Urban
Run 1
13.88
13.29
10.99
10.74
6.92
7.30
9.74
10.42
10.77
11.81
8.90
8.67
10.62
10.39
7.80
7.80
8.44
8.54
8.78
8.36
11.28
11.75
8.65
8.98
Urban
Run 2
13.25
13.16
10.72
10.79
6.64
7.28
9.99
11.00
10.99
11.45
9.18
9.02
10.46
10.51
7.71
7.90
8.36
9.19
8.76
7.98
11.37
11.63
#N/A
#N/A
Suburban
Run 1
10.90
10.50
7.97
8.04
5.66
6.22
8.42
8.78
9.51
9.73
6.48
6.39
6.60
7.40
6.20
6.17
6.42
6.44
6.59
6.36
9.26
9.48
7.27
7.61
Suburban
Run 2
11.23
10.76
8.14
7.78
5.49
6.14
8.73
8.63
9.82
9.86
6.76
6.80
7.36
7.42
6.32
6.40
6.52
6.74
5.98
6.29
9.20
9.56
#N/A
#N/A
Total
RFGI
49.26
37.82
24.72
36.88
41.09
31.31
35.03
28.04
29.75
30.11
41.11
15.91
401.02
RFGII
47.70
37.35
26.94
38.83
42.85
30.89
35.72
28.27
30.92
28.98
42.42
16.59
407.46
* The fleet-wide fuel consumption was computed using the values from the first run of the urban and
suburban driving cycles. The second run of the urban and suburban driving cycle was not included in the
fleet average
Fl of 1
-------
APPENDIX G
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
-------
Table 7. Corrected Fuel Economies (L/km)
Vehicle
A
B
C
D
E
F
c,
1
1
K'
1 *
Fuel
RFGI
RFGII
RFGI
RFGII
RFGI
RFGII
RFGI
RFGII
RFGI
RFGII
RFGI
RFGII
RFGI
RFGII
RFGI
RFGII
RFGI
RFGII
RFGI
RFGII
RFGI
RFGII
RFGI
RFG II
Urban
Run 1
0.17
0.16
0.137
0.133
0.086
0.09
0.12
0.130
0.134
0.147
0.111
0.108
0.132
0.129
0.097
0.097
0.105
0.106
0.109
0.104
0.140
0.146
0.107
0.112
Urban
Run 2
0.16
0.16
0.13
0.134
0.083
0.090
0.124
0.137
0.137
0.142
0.114
0.112
0.130
0.131
0.096
0.098
0.104
0.114
0.109
0.099
0.141
0.145
#N/A
#N/A
Suburban
Run 1
0.13
0.13
0.099
0.100
0.070
0.077
0.105
0.109
0.118
0.121
0.081
0.079
0.082
0.092
0.077
0.077
0.080
0.080
0.082
0.079
0.115
0.118
0.090
0.095
I Suburban
Run 2
0.14
0.134
0.10
0.097
0.068
0.076
0.108
0.107
0.122
0.123
0.084
0.085
0.092
0.092
0.079
0.080
0.081
0.084
0.074
0.078
0.114
0.119
#N/A
#N/A
Average
0.153
0.1482
0.1175
0.116
0.0768
0.0837
0.1146
0.1207
0.1277
0.1332
0.0973
0.0960
0.1089
0.1 110
0.0871
0.0878
0.0924
0.0961
0.0936
0.0901
0.1278
0.1318
0.0989
0.1031
Difference
-0 0048
-0.00145
0.00690
0.00605
0.00547
-0.00132
0.00212
0.00073
0.00364
-0.00349
0.00407
0.00423
Rank
7
3
10
9
8
5
2
1
4
11
6
#N/A
Vehicle L was excluded from the statistical analysis.
Gl of I
-------
REFERENCES
-------
1. A. M. Hoochhauser, J. D. Benson, V. R. Bums, R. A Gorse, Jr., W.J. Koehl, L. J.
Painter, R. M. Reuter, and J. A. Rutherford, "Fuel Composition Effects on
Automotive Fuel Economy - Auto/Oil Air Quality Improvement Research Program",
SAE Paper No. 930138(1993).
2. S. Aceves, R. Glaser, and J. Richardson, "Assessment of California Reformulated
Gasoline Impact on Vehicle Fuel Economy", Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory (January 1997).
3. "California Reformulated Gasoline: Performance and Compatibility Test Program:
Report of the Performance Subcommittee of the California Reformulated Gasoline
Advisory Committee", California Environmental Protection Agency, Air Resources
Board (March 1996).
4. M.W. Thomson, A. R. Frelund, M. Pallas, and K. D. Miller, 1987, "General Motors
2.3L Quad 4 Engine", SAE Paper 870353
5. Environmental Protection Agency, 1995, "Fuel Economy Impact Analysis of RFG",
Report EPA 420-F-95-003, EPA Office of Mobile Sources
6. Wilcoxon signed-rank test.
-------
Appendix N
-------
Temperatures at Milwaukee Mitchell airport: October - December 1998
Date
October
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Min Max
Date
Min
Max
Date
Min
Max
44
39
50
54
57
55
48
48
43
43
43
51
41
39
45
57
64
46
41
41
45
34
43
43
48
53
57
54
48
54
52
60
56
55
61
63
70
58
57
62
64
64
64
58
52
59
70
72
66
61
55
52
54
64
64
66
72
65
63
55
57
55
November
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
50
*5
37
32
28
28
28
33
36
41
36
34
25
39
36
37
34
34
36
30
27
36
46
37
43
41
28
45
55
45
54
52
45
43
41
43
45
39
45
61
45
43
50
55
50
52
45
49
54
35
39
55
57
51
54
59
64
64
64
66
December
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
36
46
53
46
45
34
34
27
28
32
30
30
27
21
39
33
26
25
27
28
12
1
7
-
-
18
19
16
23
-
-
57
61
64
59
61
55
39
43
46
39
46
46
44
46
48
44
35
48
47
34
32
13
23
-
-
30
39
39
36
-
-
(Note: All temperatures in degrees Fahrenheit)
------- |